[throw10920]

The result type is obviously insufficient for writing nontrivial programs, because nontrivial programs fail in nontrivial ways that need exceptional control flow. The result type does not work because you have to choose between immediate callers handling failures (they don't always have the context to do so because they're not aware of the context of callers higher up on the call stack) or between propagating all of your error values all the way up the stack to the error handling point and making your program fantastically brittle and insanely hard to refactor.

[ttfkam]

The Result type works for an awful lot of people. Be careful with absolute statements like "does not work." When it works for many others, they might just assume it's a skill issue.

[throw10920]

When I say "it doesn't work" I mean that it doesn't allow you to write good code, not "doesn't work" as in the sense that people don't like it. That latter one doesn't make any sense, as languages like PHP "work" for many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people.

I'm well aware of the tendency of Rust programmers to write bad code, constrained by the language, and then be deluded into thinking that that's good code.

[ttfkam]

Lord, grant me the confidence of this man who claims objective understanding of what does and does not constitute "good code".

[throw10920]

I note that you did nothing to refute my point about why error-handling-via-return-values is insufficient and instead resort to emotional manipulation and logical fallacies.

This seems to happen a lot in the Rust community when people point out flaws in the language.

[ttfkam]

Why should I defend Rust? You haven't even defined "good code", which has eluded the best minds in the field for as long as the field has existed.

You are not a serious person.

[throw10920]

I don't need to define "good code" for my argument.

You're not a person capable of using logic, apparently. As is characteristic of Rust zealots.

[nextaccountic]

You can inspect error values in Rust, handle some errors, and bubble up others, with an ordinary match statement.

Exactly like try catch

[steveklabnik]

> The result type is obviously insufficient for writing nontrivial programs

Counterpoint: there are many non-trivial programs written in Rust, and they use Result for error handling.

[throw10920]

Pointing to programs written with design flaws caused by the flaw in the programming language does invalidate the claim that the flaw exists and negatively affects those programs.

You can write any program in COBOL. Most people would say that it's an insufficient language for doing so.

"Insufficient" here obviously does not mean that it's impossible to write non-trivial programs, just that they'll have bad code.