3 ms·
I'm a bit dubious without seeing some concrete code. What I see is a lot of strong assumptions being made and usually when that happens the result is leaky abst
by InclinedPlane 13y ago
I'm a bit dubious without seeing some concrete code. What I see is a lot of strong assumptions being made and usually when that happens the result is leaky abstractions. We already have extremely leaky abstractions in every other error model out there, so I'm concerned this model is merely shifting the complexity around.
- bunderbunder 13y agoBy your own admission, all the existing error models are janky. I'd think that should be a reason to encourage people who are trying new things in an effort to come up with one that works well, not a reason to offhandedly poo-poo anyone who isn't satisfied with the acknowledgedly crummy status quo.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoSure, but there's a lot of handwaving about this new error model. If there were code examples it would be a lot easier to form a solid opinion one way or the other.
- bunderbunder 13y agoI'm not sure we should expect anything but handwaving. This language hasn't been released to the world; it may be that it's not even a fully-functional language yet. All we've got to go on is a couple sentences from a blog post that clearly wasn't intended as a detailed exposition, a G+ post from someone who is no longer involved in the project, and a whole lot of Reddit. Mostly the Reddit. More details will hopefully be coming soon, but until then we might as well stay calm and try not to confuse cocktail napkins with something that's ready for peer review.