1426

submitted 1 year ago by mycroftholmess@lemm.ee to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

138 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] fkn@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago

Also Go: exceptions aren't real, you declare and handle every error at every level or declare that you might return that error because go fuck yourself.

[-] zorro@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago

Because that's sane and readable?

[-] fkn@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

Wow. I'm honestly surprised I'm getting downvotes for a joke. Also, no. It isn't. It really isn't.

[-] gornius@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It is better than in most languages with exceptions, except from languages like Java, that require you to declare that certain method throws certain error.

It's more tedious in Go, but at the end of the day it's the same thing.

When I use someone else's code I want to be sure if that thing can throw an error so I can decide what to do with it.

[-] fkn@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Java doesn't have to declare every error at every level... Go is significantly more tedious and verbose than any other common language (for errors). I found it leads to less specific errors and errors handled at weird levels in the stack.

[-] GlitchSir@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You know it’s social media when the one that’s right is downvoted

[-] r1veRRR@feddit.de 21 points 1 year ago

It's better than "invisible" exceptions, but it's still the worst "better" version. The best solution is some version of the good old Result monad. Rust has the BEST error handling (at least in the languages i know). You must handle Errors, BUT they are just values, AND there's a easy, non-verbose way of passing on the error (the ? operator).