|
|
|
|
|
by SquishyPanda23
1765 days ago
|
|
In practice it does make a big difference because if the type system knows about it then it can enforce handling of the exception. (Or more generally, it can just force you to pattern match on the optional time and make sure you handle the empty case.) Go programs crash at runtime. In general, program failures and bugs should surface as soon as possible. Ideally no later than compile time. Instead, Go makes you wait until the app is running. For an app that has a lot of configuration options, for example, there can be a latent bug that crashes the binary for some options. And that bug may not be detected for months because nobody was using that combination of config options. The only real defense of this is to pepper your code with a bunch of nil checks. But these nil checks are also hard to test, so Go devs just learn to ignore missing code coverage. In fact, your code coverage metrics look better if you don't check for nil. I'm sure at some point Go or a library will offer a version of optional types that is well-adopted. But my point is that by the time Go was designed, null references were already widely considered a bad idea and the source of a huge class of computer bugs. Go still deliberately designed them into the type system. |
|