3 ms·

I don't see how that's a specific problem of the Go programming language though. Rust still has option types and the cases where an Option could be None still n

I don't see how that's a specific problem of the Go programming language though. Rust still has option types and the cases where an Option could be None still need to be handled. Maybe the big difference is the compiler forcing the handling of this case but it seems like a small thing for experienced programmers. Rust's default paradigm for memory management seems more significant of a language feature in my opinion and is what I can imagine most people don't like. A lot of the programs I write don't fall into the class of problems Rust is trying to prevent which makes the restrictions it enforces bothersome for me.

thayne 4y ago
> Rust still has option types and the cases where an Option could be None still need to be handled And rust has the `?` operator, as well as combinators like `map`, `and_then`, `unwrap_or_else`, etc. which IMO make the flow much easier to follow than say `if option.is_none() { return None }`. > Rust's default paradigm for memory management seems more significant of a language feature in my opinion and is what I can imagine most people don't like I never said it wasn't. My point is that if you use a language enough you get used to things that are difficult for people less experienced with that language.
- tptacek 4y ago
  `map` and its cousins make Rust error handling code easier to write. It doesn't make error handling easier to follow. And Rust introduces the problem of "thicket of different error types". And that's before we get to the sync/async boundary. There's a lot not to like about both Rust and Go's error handling. People need to stop pretending that either language has this answered perfectly. People complain about Go's wordy error handling, but systems programming is error programming. The places where Go's error handling is most annoying is in application code, where you'd ordinarily EAFP instead of LBYL. But that's also the code Rust is least convenient for. Go vs. Rust is truly the dumbest programming language slapfight in the entire industry.
  - thayne 4y ago
    Having used exceptions, like in java and python, checking error return values like in go and to some extent c, and using ADTs to represent error conditions like in rust, haskell, and scala (scala has exceptions too, but it's arguably more idiomatic to use Option, Try, etc.), primarily in application code, I by far prefer using ADTs. IMO it is a good balance between explicitness and verbosity. And ensuring you handle errors is built in to the type system.

thayne 4y ago

> Rust still has option types and the cases where an Option could be None still need to be handled And rust has the `?` operator, as well as combinators like `map`, `and_then`, `unwrap_or_else`, etc. which IMO make the flow much easier to follow than say `if option.is_none() { return None }`. > Rust's default paradigm for memory management seems more significant of a language feature in my opinion and is what I can imagine most people don't like I never said it wasn't. My point is that if you use a language enough you get used to things that are difficult for people less experienced with that language.

tptacek 4y ago
`map` and its cousins make Rust error handling code easier to write. It doesn't make error handling easier to follow. And Rust introduces the problem of "thicket of different error types". And that's before we get to the sync/async boundary. There's a lot not to like about both Rust and Go's error handling. People need to stop pretending that either language has this answered perfectly. People complain about Go's wordy error handling, but systems programming is error programming. The places where Go's error handling is most annoying is in application code, where you'd ordinarily EAFP instead of LBYL. But that's also the code Rust is least convenient for. Go vs. Rust is truly the dumbest programming language slapfight in the entire industry.
- thayne 4y ago
  Having used exceptions, like in java and python, checking error return values like in go and to some extent c, and using ADTs to represent error conditions like in rust, haskell, and scala (scala has exceptions too, but it's arguably more idiomatic to use Option, Try, etc.), primarily in application code, I by far prefer using ADTs. IMO it is a good balance between explicitness and verbosity. And ensuring you handle errors is built in to the type system.