I haven’t written a lot of Go code, but I suspect I’d be extremely annoyed by its approach to error handling (as a result that requires explicit handling). In

I haven’t written a lot of Go code, but I suspect I’d be extremely annoyed by its approach to error handling (as a result that requires explicit handling). In the vast majority of all Java programs that I have written, there is typically a single try/catch block at the very top level (and occasionally in low level IO code) - and none of the intermediate layers of application logic need to concern themselves with error handling (exception handling) at all. This is as it should be. The needless ceremony required to check and handle errors on every function call sounds tedious and I can’t see how it contributes to clarity. Try/catch is a blessing. Rust achieves a similar degree of ergonomics with its `Result` type and `?` operator. You can propagate the failure case of functions that return a result easily with `f()?;`. While it does require ‘annotating’ these functions by declaring them to return a `Result`, unlike Java, that explicitness fits well into Rust, and is trivial to compose using `?`. Instead of multiple if/then or match blocks, you can write `let x = foo()?.bar()?.baz()?` or similar. This also works with Rust’s `Option` type, and can be implemented for arbitrary types (as I understand it) using the `Try` trait. Simple monadic programming without the complexity present in other functional languages. And I haven’t even touched on the benefits of Rust macros. TDoes Go have anything like Rust’s `dbg!`, or its statically-typed `println!`, `format!`, etc.?