3 ms·
> The implication from reading the article is that [...] The implication you inferred from reading the article is that... I think there reason is that there a
by tagrun 12y ago
> The implication from reading the article is that [...]
The implication you inferred from reading the article is that...
I think there reason is that there a misunderstanding here caused by a cultural gap. The Practice of Programming is a very good read which I feel like recommending to every programmer.
> And generics allow you to reuse existing components much cleaner and exceptions allow you to handle errors in a consistent way across the system.
Although I don't think "exceptions allow you to handle errors in a consistent way" (based on my long and still on-going experience with C++), I still don't see how exceptions and generics "ensure consistency across the platform".
> You can build error handling classes but often handling errors explicitly doesn't scale.
You don't build error handling classes in Go.
- pjmlp 12y ago> You don't build error handling classes in Go. That much is true, you compare strings!
- anonymoushn 12y ago> You don't build error handling classes in Go. I've encountered people doing this. When I said "If I had Maybe here then I could write 1/5 as much code," someone showed me a class that maintained whether it had encountered an error, and each method would do nothing and return the previous error if so. This allowed him to write 1/5 as much code in the method that actually does stuff, just as he would in Haskell or Swift. Unfortunately the approach of reducing every function full of noisy error checking to a bunch of calls on one object is pretty bad in general...