|
|
|
|
|
|
by joshuamorton
2437 days ago
|
|
|
At this point I've written fairly little go code, but reviewed quite a bit. Among those I work with, my opinion seems to be shared. > I think you'll find that visual structure is actually important. I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that go adds visual noise that isn't present in python. (and it is noise: the proposal to add try! shows that the error handling style is noisy. It can be basically entirely removed by an automated transformation). Actual pattern matching like rust has, or even what Google C++ has with StatusOr and [1] our nonsense RETURN_IF_ERROR macros are better than what go does, and just as explicit (actually often moreso, since its more difficult to forget an error condition) [1]: https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/blob/d0f91c863ae... |
|
|
Yeah, preference distributions are hard to assess. Either of us could be wrong.
> I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that go adds visual noise that isn't present in python. (and it is noise: the proposal to add try! shows that the error handling style is noisy. It can be basically entirely removed by an automated transformation).
I’m glad we agree that terseness is not readability and visual structure is valuable. How do we meaningfully debate whether some boilerplate is noise or useful visual structure? Why is Python’s implicit propagation of errors elegant and beautiful visual structure while Go’s explicit error handling is ugly noise? Specifically how do we know that you aren’t prejudiced by your disproportionate experience with Python (even assuming my disproportionate experience with Python and preference for Go is an outlier)? What are the criteria?