> There is nothing in the FAQ claiming that Go doesn't have exceptions. Is this some sort of gaslighting? Not only is it in there, I even quoted it for you. >

> There is nothing in the FAQ claiming that Go doesn't have exceptions. Is this some sort of gaslighting? Not only is it in there, I even quoted it for you. > the question comes externally from people who don't know about Go And they're told it doesn't have exceptions. In the last few of years they've started correcting the FAQ and other introductory material. I'm not going to go through all the intro material again. Maybe in the last 10 years they've fixed the misinformation. But an FAQ answer that doesn't start with "it does, ", is wrong. Saying "Go doesn't have exceptions", followed by the feature it does have, which is the literal exact definition of exceptions (well, some Lisp languages have fancier exceptions, but still), is gaslighting. Like I said elsewhere, the C++ standard library also doesn't throw willy-nilly. It's not "not exceptions" just because they boycott that name, or its intended usage. Just like "Go doesn't have warnings. It's all errors, the equivalent of -Werror" is a lie. They just chose to put the warnings into "go vet", to cover their tracks. It may be that they've stopped using "doesn't have exceptions" in basically all marketing material now, but when I was learning it a decade ago it was everywhere. So now we have all this code out there that's not exception safe. And that's why (to bring it back to the topic) it is a thing that they got wrong.