The pattern we're talking about is returning errors and having to explicitly check for them, right? How does the lack of "algebraic data types/enum/unions" make this pattern un-ergonomic?
How would you forget, exactly? Your tests are going to blow in your face should you ever leave out an entire feature from the implementation.
If you forgot to document that feature in your tests, which is more likely, then you've created a situation of undefined behaviour, not a bug. You've made no claims as to what should happen. All possible behaviours are equally valid.
And no, pattern matching doesn't help you here as you still need to document what happens on those pattern matches. If you forget to document these cases you've still got the very same undefined behaviour. There is no escaping the need for the tests.
It's cool that there is nicer syntax, that your editor can warn you of mistakes while you are typing, and that can save time and all that don't get me wrong, but this idea that you are going straight up forget without any notice of your forgetfulness, as fun as a trope as it is, just isn't realistic.
> ... this idea that you are going straight up forget without any notice of your forgetfulness, as fun as a trope as it is, just isn't realistic.
By forgetting. Copying `if err != nil` is a mundane and repetitive process, it's easy for your brain to go into auto-pilot.
> And no, pattern matching doesn't help you here as you still need to document what happens on those pattern matches. If you forget to document these cases you've still got the very same undefined behaviour. There is no escaping the need for the tests.
Pattern matching (with algebraic data types/enum/unions) helps because it forces you to check the error. It becomes impossible to use a return value without checking the error.
