> OTOH, things like criticisms about it's error handling are overblown. At best it's a mild nuisance, and more often than not, a good thing that makes error handling explicit and clear.
Yea, i'm a bit critic of Go (used it professionally for ~5 years, but no longer), but it's error handling is fine. Would i like Rust's `?` error handling syntax? Yes. Would i prefer better language tools for error handling (like enums/etc) rather than usually just wrapping strings? Absolutely.
But the actual _need to error check_ itself is fine. I think it's funny, because to me the Go audience is one similar to NodeJS/JavaScript, aka one that favors features to improve prototyping. And while much of Go feels (at first glance) to promote this, the error handling does not.
I prefer Go error handling. But i wonder if Try/Catch would have been more inline with much of Go's audience.
Yea, i'm a bit critic of Go (used it professionally for ~5 years, but no longer), but it's error handling is fine. Would i like Rust's `?` error handling syntax? Yes. Would i prefer better language tools for error handling (like enums/etc) rather than usually just wrapping strings? Absolutely.
But the actual _need to error check_ itself is fine. I think it's funny, because to me the Go audience is one similar to NodeJS/JavaScript, aka one that favors features to improve prototyping. And while much of Go feels (at first glance) to promote this, the error handling does not.
I prefer Go error handling. But i wonder if Try/Catch would have been more inline with much of Go's audience.