Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

I have been following the various proposals for changing error handling in Go since the beginning. Recently I've decided I probably would not use them and I would stick with the explicit error checking. While verbose and repetitive, in my opinion it is the easiest to read and understand. I've

Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

Score one in support for this, from the "peanut gallery" of "experienced programmers in other languages, but only around 2 years of Go". I thought at first that if err != nil { ... } seemed clumsy, but I myself don't like exceptions and implicit flow control constructs much and the more I used Go,

[go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 5:44:01 PM UTC-7, Tyler Compton wrote: > > If anyone hasn't seen it, an issue with the "proposal" tag was created > earlier on the Go issue tracker titled "Proposal: leave "if err != nil" > alone?" (here ). This issue seems to >

Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

other two.-Original Message- From: Henrik Johansson Sent: Jul 1, 2019 1:22 PM To: robert engels Cc: David Suarez , golang-nuts Subject: Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal I am not making this argument but you are continuousl

Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

ngineers that can >> foretell the "end result" of various paths with far greater accuracy than a >> new developer with multiple years of nothing but Go experience. >> >> Nothing is new, it is an impedance matching exercise. >> >> >> -Original

Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

e "Go team".-Original Message- From: Henrik Johansson Sent: Jul 1, 2019 12:14 PM To: robert engels Cc: David Suarez , golang-nuts Subject: Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal This is funny since you are perfectly describing the Go c

Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

g is new, it is an impedance matching exercise. > > > -Original Message- > From: David Suarez > Sent: Jul 1, 2019 11:16 AM > To: golang-nuts > Subject: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal > > The number of posts on this topic pique

Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

rom: David Suarez Sent: Jul 1, 2019 11:16 AM To: golang-nuts Subject: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal The number of posts on this topic piqued my curiosity so I hope to add some considerations after doing some research on this trail tha

[go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

The number of posts on this topic piqued my curiosity so I hope to add some considerations after doing some research on this trail that I hope you find useful. TL;DR: It is possible that the reason for the interest in improving "exception handling" in the proposed way is driven by individuals

[go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

If good Go code handles or wraps every error, that code would never use 'try'. It seems weird to add a language feature that many codebases would discourage the use of. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

I think the hostility stems from the fact that there are two very distinct camps (sort of mirrors the current political world). There are those that think the current Go way is fine, and no need to fix it. There are others that think it needs to be radically overhauled (and that ‘try’ doesn’t

[go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

On Saturday, June 29, 2019 at 1:44:01 AM UTC+1, Tyler Compton wrote: > > ... I was surprised to see how poorly the discussion has gone. There are > quite a few "me too" comments, a few image-only posts, some less than > stellar personal conduct, and overall not a lot of nuanced discussion. I >