[pyrale]

> rust sprinkle ”?” everywhere and wants to avoid dealing with the error

You certainly must handle the error if you want your computation to continue.

> golang is more explicit

Not sure how golang is more explicit. In functor-based style, an error-prone computation stops if it yields an error and that error isn't handled explicitly. That makes sure that any successful computation is based on expected behaviour from beginning to end.

> and robust

Likewise, that's a claim based on nothing. Forcing developers to write a little snippet of code everywhere lest their code has a bug does not make code more robust.

> but I have definitely seen more ”extreme” and correct error handling in golang, whereas in rust the convenience of just bubbling it up wins.

You also have the option to match a result for lower-level error handling in rust.

Claiming that "convenience" makes rustaceans not use that option is like claiming that gophers don't check the error content because it's faster to panic.

[ansc]

My bad, I should have written in my experience working on larger codebases. It was a bit too general. It was never about the semantics about the language, but about allowing developers to make the correct choice. Kind of why Golang was built for Google I guess. In practice I've found Golang developers to handle errors where appropriate, where in (binary) Rust applications I've usually found `anyhow` everywhere with `?` to be a bit of a silent issue.

You're right that the languages have the same capability. The terseness can IMO both be a strength and a liability.