On May 22, 6:14 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:13:30 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote about the lack > of exceptions in Go: > > > Looking at their rationale, it is appears that one or more of the > > primary go developers had to deal way too often with people who overuse > > and abuse exceptions, so they are reverting to an almost childish "I'll > > fix their little red wagon! When they have to use *my* language, they > > won't be able to do that anymore!" kind of mentality. Another > > possibility is that they viewed the complexity of exceptions as > > interfering with their primary goals, and felt it necessary to > > rationalize their absence after the fact. > > That's two possible explanations. A third is that they genuinely believe > that exceptions lead to poor programming practice and left them out, just > as the designers of many other languages believe that goto leads to poor > practice and leave it out as well. > > I don't think there's necessarily anything "childish" about choosing to > leave out a language feature that you think is bad from a language you > design.
While I admit that "childish" is an inflammatory simplification, other than that, I think that your possible explanation is, essentially, identical to my first possibility -- why would you think exceptions were bad if you didn't have first-hand evidence of that? Regards, Pat -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
