> rust sprinkle ”?” everywhere and wants to avoid dealing with the error You certainly must handle the error if you want your computation to continue. > golan

> rust sprinkle ”?” everywhere and wants to avoid dealing with the error You certainly must handle the error if you want your computation to continue. > golang is more explicit Not sure how golang is more explicit. In functor-based style, an error-prone computation stops if it yields an error and that error isn't handled explicitly. That makes sure that any successful computation is based on expected behaviour from beginning to end. > and robust Likewise, that's a claim based on nothing. Forcing developers to write a little snippet of code everywhere lest their code has a bug does not make code more robust. > but I have definitely seen more ”extreme” and correct error handling in golang, whereas in rust the convenience of just bubbling it up wins. You also have the option to match a result for lower-level error handling in rust. Claiming that "convenience" makes rustaceans not use that option is like claiming that gophers don't check the error content because it's faster to panic.