[mepian]

"But Ghostscript’s PDF interpreter was, as noted, written in PostScript, and PostScript is not a great language for handling error conditions and recovering."

Isn't C, their chosen replacement of PostScript, also particularly bad at this?

[colonwqbang]

I also had a slight chuckle at this. However, I'm sure C is still a great step up from Postscript.

It is however quite entertaining to read the predictable comments from Rust/Java/C++ fans who are upset that they didn't choose their favourite language.

[daptaq]

I'd say a language is bad at error handling if it doesn't let you check if a procedure failed or not. What C does it that it compiles even if you ignore this, which is a different issue. Java, Rust, etc. wouldn't compile if you totally ignored it, but you that doesn't mean you have to do proper error handling, beyond satisfying the compiler/type system.

[ptx]

Are there any languages that are bad at error handling then, according to that definition? That don't let you return values, set global flags, mutate arguments or in any other way communicate back from a procedure?

[samus]

It mostly depends on API design I guess, but missing language features can certainly more complicated than necessary. I guess the GhostScript authors felt error handling in PostScript to be difficult since it is a concatenative programming language (related to functional programming languages) with a dynamic type system, even though it has error handling facilities.