[awused]

>As you explain yourself, they cannot be equivalent representations.

That's the point. They are not equivalent, they represent different things, and Either is a better fit for the actual code even in Go most of the time. Go shouldn't force people to use (T, error) when Either[T, error] is the correct choice.

But that's twice now you've resorted to ad-hominem attacks instead of responding to the content, so I'll take your implicit admission that you have no rebuttals.

[randomdata]

> That's the point. They are not equivalent, they represent different things

Good. I'm glad you came back to the first comment in the thread. I am not sure why it took you so long, but I respect that you got there eventually.

> I'll take your implicit admission that you have no rebuttals.

Naturally. You finally realized what I said is true, and we've talked about nothing else. What could there possibly be to rebut? You have clearly not thought this through.

[awused]

I recommend you read your own posts sometimes. Your claim of "in Go values must always be useful" was rebutted multiple times. That you're trying to move the goalposts to something neither of us was arguing speaks loudly. You also dance dishonestly around the actual point I made in that last post. Again, I'd recommend following your advice about reading a thread before responding to it.

[randomdata]

> Your claim of "in Go values must always be useful"

I said no such thing. I said idiomatic Go indicates that you must always make values useful. This is an onus placed on the programmer, not something guaranteed by the language. However, since the Either monad here was said to be introduced to wrap idiomatic Go code, not whatever haphazardly written Go code you happened to find in a SourceForge repository, that is of relevance.

> was rebutted multiple times

Cool. I must not have read it. There was a lot of weird shit in there that had nothing to do with anything. I'm not sure how that would even find relevance to the discussion taking place. I get that first year computer science programs are starting up and you're excited to share what you learned in your first week, but I really don't care. You are not going to tell me anything I haven't heard many times before.

[awused]

>whatever haphazardly written Go code you happened to find

Well, if the Go stdlib is haphazardly written and unidiomatic then I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that idiomatic Go, as per your definition, exists.

>more baseless ad-hominem and ignoring the points

I'll boil it down to one sentence: Go forces programmers to use (T, error) when it is not appropriate, and Go would be better if it did not.

[randomdata]

> Well, if the Go stdlib is haphazardly written and unidiomatic

Yeah, the older parts of the standard library are definitely not idiomatic. Lots of functions in the stdlib which return errors don't even return an error type. But, of course they aren't idiomatic. Idiomatacy is emergent. They couldn't possibly have been written idiomatically.

> I'll boil it down to one sentence: Go forces programmers to use (T, error) when it is not appropriate, and Go would be better if it did not.

That may be true, but of no relevance. I can see why I didn't bother reading it. Thanks for clarifying that it would have been a waste of my time.

[awused]

So you've defined idiomatic Go code in your own way, that no one else's definitions match with, such that no idiomatic Go code actually exists. If no idiomatic Go code exists, then it's definitionally true that all idiomatic Go code is without flaws, but I don't agree with your personalized definition of idiomatic Go in the first place.

>That may be true, but of no relevance.

So you agree with this, and it rebuts the entire contents of the first post I responded to. I wonder why you were posting irrelevant, off-topic content yourself. But I'm glad you finally agree that Go isn't flawless.