undefined | Better HN

0 pointsUkv1d ago0 comments

> `if err != nil` is the feature, not the bug. It forces you to look at every place something can go wrong and decide what to do about it

Haven't really used Go, but can't someone just `result, _ := foo()` and go on using `result`, not checking any errors?

The way Rust does it seems closer to forcing you to handle any errors in order to obtain the result (though it is still easy to just `.unwrap()` without properly thinking about it).

0 comments

chuckadams1d ago

We do want to check for errors, we'd just prefer that it not be a repeated 3-line boilerplate pattern that ends up being >50% of all code. Rust does it with one character.

UkvOP1d ago

I agree that Rust's approach is better. I'm questioning the claim that Go "forces you" to handle errors, since to my understanding with Go someone can just eschew that 3-line boilerplate, silently ignoring the error, and still use the result (which is bad).

4ndrewl1d ago

The point being that's how you've decided to deal with the error, by ignoring it.

1 more reply

therealdrag01d ago

Personally, I don’t want to swallow errors I want to throw them. 90% of the time, I have a few small cross-cutting points (like an api controller) I want to catch and handle exceptions that get thrown from the rest of the code base.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse