3 ms·

You interpret Go using a different pattern for error handling as a criticism of or challenge to exceptions. Consider that languages can take different approache

You interpret Go using a different pattern for error handling as a criticism of or challenge to exceptions. Consider that languages can take different approaches, without having to get into “best” or “worse.” Every approach to error handling has advantages and shortcomings. The Go designers have explained and talked about this decision many times. Some people don’t like it and maybe choose a different language. No one pushes FUD regarding exceptions. I get the impression that if you choose a Toyota you would think that your neighbor buying a Honda poses a criticism you have to address. Discussed before many times on HN, such as: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4159641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4159641 Original article: https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponenti...

kaba0 2y ago
> Every approach to error handling has advantages and shortcomings If under ‘every approach’ you explicitly exclude go’s terrible errno syntax sugar, and include exceptions and sum types, then yeah. There is zero advantage to go’s error handling compared to the proper sum typed solutions.
- gregjor 2y ago
  You don't like how Go implements error handling. We get it. Lots of people complain about that. Use a "proper" language more to your liking. Go's designers have explained their decisions many times, I won't repeat their justifications here. Obviously they had to make choices in line with their overall vision for Go. They feel strongly that programmers should handle or at least acknowledge the possibility of every error, explicitly, right where it gets reported. Exceptions and sum types don't enforce that.
  - kaba0 2y ago
    How are sum types not better in literally every possible way? Like, it’s as objective as it gets. Sum types makes it mandatory to unwrap the result - ergo some form of error handling. It is not the case with go.

kaba0 2y ago

> Every approach to error handling has advantages and shortcomings If under ‘every approach’ you explicitly exclude go’s terrible errno syntax sugar, and include exceptions and sum types, then yeah. There is zero advantage to go’s error handling compared to the proper sum typed solutions.

gregjor 2y ago
You don't like how Go implements error handling. We get it. Lots of people complain about that. Use a "proper" language more to your liking. Go's designers have explained their decisions many times, I won't repeat their justifications here. Obviously they had to make choices in line with their overall vision for Go. They feel strongly that programmers should handle or at least acknowledge the possibility of every error, explicitly, right where it gets reported. Exceptions and sum types don't enforce that.
- kaba0 2y ago
  How are sum types not better in literally every possible way? Like, it’s as objective as it gets. Sum types makes it mandatory to unwrap the result - ergo some form of error handling. It is not the case with go.