This is really interesting to me because it shows what to think of the claim that explicit error handling makes go code more reliable tha...
This is really interesting to me because it shows what to think of the claim that explicit error handling makes go code more reliable than languages which use exceptions. When using go I often get the feeling of doing something wrong. Because I know I'm supposed to "handle errors" but all I really want is the program to blow up and hand me a stack trace. This gives me the worst of both worlds, I have to manually trigger something that approaches the unhandled exception behavior of other languages while retaining the verbosity of explicit errors returns. Now it seems like I'm not the only person struggling with this. Has anyone come up with a sane approach to that problem?
Posted by raphael_kimmig on Jun 4, 2014, 12:10 PM
Tags
Related issues
- I guarantee it's a convenience feature.
- That isn't really relevant for the tool starting the container.
- Why is there no link to the source?
- Something I wonder about in this domain is if this is the fault of the language.
- Namespace pollution is an annoying problem in Rust.
- Currently, no language ports of Timefold Solver are planned.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,500 issues0 comments
hackernews (Software)
I guarantee it's a convenience feature.
NewThat isn't really relevant for the tool starting the container.
Why is there no link to the source?
Something I wonder about in this domain is if this is the fault of the language.
Namespace pollution is an annoying problem in Rust.
Currently, no language ports of Timefold Solver are planned.
I agree with you, almost all .NET code I write is within the .NET framework, yet when I look at C# repos, it's disheartening to see so ma...
Why is there no simple workaround for this?
This is really interesting to me because it shows what to think of the claim that explicit error handling makes go code more reliable tha...
This is really interesting to me because it shows what to think of the claim that explicit error handling makes go code more reliable than languages which use exceptions. When using go I often get the feeling of doing something wrong. Because I know I'm supposed to "handle errors" but all I really want is the program to blow up and hand me a stack trace. This gives me the worst of both worlds, I have to manually trigger something that approaches the unhandled exception behavior of other languages while retaining the verbosity of explicit errors returns. Now it seems like I'm not the only person struggling with this. Has anyone come up with a sane approach to that problem?
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.