A showdead comment says: > I'm fairly amused that you want Rust after whining about Go's error handling. Fact is, Rust's error handling story is quite nice, w

A showdead comment says: > I'm fairly amused that you want Rust after whining about Go's error handling. Fact is, Rust's error handling story is quite nice, with plans to get nicer. It has the try! macro which can automatically convert errors into my own error type with the boilerplate outside the function (thus successfully separating success and error paths to a large extent), and chainable Options and Results for when I need those. With Go, nearly all of my code revolves around handling errors manually, generally repeating how to handle errors several times over, interleaved with the success code, when 99% of the time it's "return an error". EDIT: Another comment: I'm well aware of Option and try!, etc in Rust. But overall, Rust doesn't mean that you don't have to think about error handling, it just has different mechanisms for reducing the noise in your code. Indeed, and I said "most of my code is error handling". I didn't suggest I don't want to think about it - I'd just prefer that I can read what a function does without 2/3rds of the lines in that function being error handling, and thus obscuring what the function does in the success case.