> but it's the whole point ! that's exactly why exceptions are good ! Good for what? For crashing the program with a stacktrace? Probably. But for regular erro

> but it's the whole point ! that's exactly why exceptions are good ! Good for what? For crashing the program with a stacktrace? Probably. But for regular error handling - that's a terrible thing. They break normal control flow by adding a parallel / alternative control flow. Now with them you have to think on what happens if any of the code you call suddenly throws an exception and the number of potential control flow paths increases drastically. They are not referentially transparent and it is nearly impossible to do functional programming with them (they introduce side effects everywhere). You can also end up in a really bad situation when a destructor throws (typically crash). > I get 2987 as a result. Choosing to program like this instead of using exceptions which at least can be recovered by the person who will use your lib, is literally hateful towards users. But panics are Rust equivalent of exceptions. That's the whole point of them. They are used for exceptional cases, which are impossible to recover from (which means the only way to deal with is to dump core and terminate) and most of the time preventable (you can always avoid dividing by zero or going out of array bounds). It looks like we agree they should not be used for regular errors, like e.g. file not found. I'd not like my word processor to terminate with a core dump when it couldn't load the file from the disk. In this case return values are way better error handling mechanism. > invalid state must not be representable in the program Returning an option/try/either strikes that goal just as well as exceptions.