4 ms·

I don’t think any of that is contradicted by what this seems to be trying to do. In fact, Go doesn’t make you deal with your errors (you’re free to ignore the r

by wrs 3y ago

I don’t think any of that is contradicted by what this seems to be trying to do. In fact, Go doesn’t make you deal with your errors (you’re free to ignore the returns) whereas this would (via exhaustive pattern match).

zer00eyz 3y ago
> In fact, Go doesn’t make you deal with your errors Your right, it does not. I will _ =: an error in a throw away script all the time. I see that in a code review, in production code... Big red flag. This is a departure from an exception, that might be thrown in one place and handled far far away from the code you're looking at.
- strongly-typed 3y ago
  I'm not an expert in Go, and my experience is somewhat limited, however, a few years back I fixed a really subtle bug in a project that was related to the fact that errors _weren't_ being handled correctly. As a relative newbie to Go, the code in the diff[0] didn't appear to be doing anything wrong, until I added some print statements and realized that the numbers were not adding up correctly. IMO, if the returned value had been more like a Rust optional or result type, I think this issue would have either not been a bug in the first place, or it would have been easier to spot the bug. [0]: https://github.com/semilin/genkey/commit/fafed6744555c5a81fd2c6f218091cc746150c05 https://github.com/semilin/genkey/commit/fafed6744555c5a81fd... EDIT: The fact that this was a bug at all makes me fear for the rest of the code base. If this one slipped through the cracks, how can I know that the rest of the code base is correct?
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > The fact that this was a bug at all makes me fear for the rest of the code base. The fact that the commit was accepted into a release without any changes to accompanying tests is what is most concerning. You should be afraid.
  - nasretdinov 3y ago
    Is the wrong code in the new part of the diff or in the old one? Generally getting zero value from a map is a feature, but the code that the diff replaces did look overly complex and fragile to me already tbh
Thaxll 3y ago
Rust does not enforce error checking either. You can ignore errors in Rust.
- ben-schaaf 3y ago
  Ignoring errors is a thing you can do whether you're checking them or not. Rust does enforce error checking, every Result<T, E> is required to be checked before the value can be accessed. The only exception for this is if you don't need to access the Result's value, for which there's at least a built-in warning. And of course `unsafe`.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > Result<T, E> is required to be checked before the value can be accessed. Which is a flaw in Borgo, at least when interfacing with Go code, as in Go both T and E should independently valid states.
- djbusby 3y ago
  Basic has on error goto next

by wrs 3y ago

zer00eyz 3y ago

> In fact, Go doesn’t make you deal with your errors Your right, it does not. I will _ =: an error in a throw away script all the time. I see that in a code review, in production code... Big red flag. This is a departure from an exception, that might be thrown in one place and handled far far away from the code you're looking at.

strongly-typed 3y ago
I'm not an expert in Go, and my experience is somewhat limited, however, a few years back I fixed a really subtle bug in a project that was related to the fact that errors _weren't_ being handled correctly. As a relative newbie to Go, the code in the diff[0] didn't appear to be doing anything wrong, until I added some print statements and realized that the numbers were not adding up correctly. IMO, if the returned value had been more like a Rust optional or result type, I think this issue would have either not been a bug in the first place, or it would have been easier to spot the bug. [0]: https://github.com/semilin/genkey/commit/fafed6744555c5a81fd2c6f218091cc746150c05 https://github.com/semilin/genkey/commit/fafed6744555c5a81fd... EDIT: The fact that this was a bug at all makes me fear for the rest of the code base. If this one slipped through the cracks, how can I know that the rest of the code base is correct?
- randomdata 3y ago
  > The fact that this was a bug at all makes me fear for the rest of the code base. The fact that the commit was accepted into a release without any changes to accompanying tests is what is most concerning. You should be afraid.
- nasretdinov 3y ago
  Is the wrong code in the new part of the diff or in the old one? Generally getting zero value from a map is a feature, but the code that the diff replaces did look overly complex and fragile to me already tbh

Thaxll 3y ago

Rust does not enforce error checking either. You can ignore errors in Rust.

ben-schaaf 3y ago
Ignoring errors is a thing you can do whether you're checking them or not. Rust does enforce error checking, every Result<T, E> is required to be checked before the value can be accessed. The only exception for this is if you don't need to access the Result's value, for which there's at least a built-in warning. And of course `unsafe`.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > Result<T, E> is required to be checked before the value can be accessed. Which is a flaw in Borgo, at least when interfacing with Go code, as in Go both T and E should independently valid states.
djbusby 3y ago
Basic has on error goto next