[xedrac]

> people were griping about Go's error handling (if err != nil) when Rust is, at best, no better than Go

Have you used Rust in a non-trivial context recently? I have a few minor gripes about Rust's error handling, but Go's error handling isn't even in the same ballpark. Your complaint about the ? operator is moot, because you can easily use "match", "if let", "unwrap_or_else()", etc... to handle the errors in place. ? just gives you the convenience of mapping/propagating an error, which is desirable in some situations.

[ChubbyGlasses]

> "match", "if let", "unwrap_or_else()", etc...

all different ways to write `if err != nil`, none of them are better than the other

> mapping/propagating an error

which is literally what i said "moves all your error handling logic to a separate file"

have you written any long-term maintainable code? comments like yours is why i've lost hope in rust and the community; you don't even understand the challenges large code bases face and yet continue with baseless zealotry.

[xedrac]

> all different ways to write `if err != nil`

Not hardly. This comment makes me think you don't have any significant experience with Rust.

> you don't even understand the challenges large code bases face

I've worked in more large code bases than I care to think about, including ones written in Go. In fact, one of the primary reasons I like Rust is because it gives me so much confidence when working in large codes. The compiler is ruthless! Data races won't compile. Forgot to handle a return value? Won't compile. Undefined behavior? Not likely. Async code that looks like sync code? You bet! I'm not hating on Go here; I think it's a fine language. And Rust isn't without its problems.

>continue with baseless zealotry

It's certainly not baseless, but I can see how it would come across as zealotry. I'm simply excited about Rust because it has made my life as a programmer much better.