4 ms·

I don't like nulls and I definitely appreciate discriminated unions. But WTF is wrong exceptions?! And by that I mean try/catch/finally. I wouldn't use a lan

I don't like nulls and I definitely appreciate discriminated unions. But WTF is wrong exceptions?! And by that I mean try/catch/finally. I wouldn't use a language that doesn't have them. The lack of exceptions in GO is just one of the reasons I hate it. Go is a good example of what life would be without exceptions, code polluted with error handing.

zamalek 3y ago
Exceptions are invisible control flow. You have no guarantees about what piece of code will execute anywhere in your codebase. I agreed with you maybe 2-3 years ago but have since done a hard 180 in that opinion after seriously using a language with no exceptions. I'm too stupid to reason about exception control flow, just like I am too stupid to do manual memory management. There are also huge differences between exception alternatives, and I definitely think more progress is possible. I also dislike how Go approaches exceptionless, but Rust does a far better job. Hare seems like it could have one of the best approaches (so far) but I haven't actually used it. Erlang/Elixir/Gleam are also something I want to try out. Allowing things to just crash and restart is definitely a different perspective worth learning about.
- emorning3 3y ago
  Y'know what, I just took a look and I think I would like Rust-style error handling. It reminded me about one thing that I dislike about exception handing in C#, that methods don't have to declare the exceptions that they throw, unlike Java. And the thing I disliked about the Java way was declaring exceptions that would be panics in Rust. I also like that ? Rust operator for propagating errors. I've done some Erlang and I definitely like Erlang monitors. Maybe the Rust way combined with monitors would be the ultimate in error handling :-)
- Decabytes 3y ago
  What if there was syntax that was built into a language that required annotating exceptions functions that threw exceptions. That way at least you would know that an exception was possible to be thrown in a function and could handle it appropriately

zamalek 3y ago

Exceptions are invisible control flow. You have no guarantees about what piece of code will execute anywhere in your codebase. I agreed with you maybe 2-3 years ago but have since done a hard 180 in that opinion after seriously using a language with no exceptions. I'm too stupid to reason about exception control flow, just like I am too stupid to do manual memory management. There are also huge differences between exception alternatives, and I definitely think more progress is possible. I also dislike how Go approaches exceptionless, but Rust does a far better job. Hare seems like it could have one of the best approaches (so far) but I haven't actually used it. Erlang/Elixir/Gleam are also something I want to try out. Allowing things to just crash and restart is definitely a different perspective worth learning about.

emorning3 3y ago
Y'know what, I just took a look and I think I would like Rust-style error handling. It reminded me about one thing that I dislike about exception handing in C#, that methods don't have to declare the exceptions that they throw, unlike Java. And the thing I disliked about the Java way was declaring exceptions that would be panics in Rust. I also like that ? Rust operator for propagating errors. I've done some Erlang and I definitely like Erlang monitors. Maybe the Rust way combined with monitors would be the ultimate in error handling :-)
Decabytes 3y ago
What if there was syntax that was built into a language that required annotating exceptions functions that threw exceptions. That way at least you would know that an exception was possible to be thrown in a function and could handle it appropriately