[ainar-g]

Funny you mention Go, because it's my main language these days. And I have to be honest, I don't have the issues you're mentioning. 99 % of loops in the code I review is the plain for-range type, and whenever it's something more complex, I usually am/recommending splitting away the body. Also helps with complexity metrics (and having at least a maximum cyclomatic complexity checker for your code is a must, imo). And if your error handling is repetitive, there is a high chance you're not adding the important context to errors and/or not checking if the context is added in the reviewed code.

A thing I've discovered that helps me a lot that don't see mentioned at all is to always review code by checking it out on your machine and using your editor to inspect it. Maybe it's just me, but there is something about seeing the code in your own environment as well as having all of your tools to e.g. see where a method is used helps massively.

[shirogane86x]

Re: the splitting the body part, that's usually what I do. When I have to review code that doesn't fit in my brain I just end up checking out the code locally and aggressively splitting it into different functions (sometimes even going down to each function having 1 to 2 lines of code at most) just to lower the cognitive burden enough to understand it. It works reasonably well, but takes a while. As for the repetitive error handling: for me it's more about the shape of the code than the actual code itself. I haven't worked much with go, but the few times I did it was as if my brain turned off the moment I saw the word err, I don't quite know how else to explain it (I have similar problems with try catch, but those are somewhat less common in the codebases I worked with, so the problem is less prevalent)

[ainar-g]

Re. the shape of the code, it's probably a matter of habit, as I have the complete opposite experience reading code in languages with exceptions. That is, I find that there is too much happening within a few lines, wondering which line can explode and in which ways, heh.