[tagrun]

> The implication from reading the article is that [...]

The implication you inferred from reading the article is that...

I think there reason is that there a misunderstanding here caused by a cultural gap. The Practice of Programming is a very good read which I feel like recommending to every programmer.

> And generics allow you to reuse existing components much cleaner and exceptions allow you to handle errors in a consistent way across the system.

Although I don't think "exceptions allow you to handle errors in a consistent way" (based on my long and still on-going experience with C++), I still don't see how exceptions and generics "ensure consistency across the platform".

> You can build error handling classes but often handling errors explicitly doesn't scale.

You don't build error handling classes in Go.

[anonymoushn]

> You don't build error handling classes in Go.

I've encountered people doing this. When I said "If I had Maybe here then I could write 1/5 as much code," someone showed me a class that maintained whether it had encountered an error, and each method would do nothing and return the previous error if so. This allowed him to write 1/5 as much code in the method that actually does stuff, just as he would in Haskell or Swift. Unfortunately the approach of reducing every function full of noisy error checking to a bunch of calls on one object is pretty bad in general...

[pjmlp]

> You don't build error handling classes in Go.

That much is true, you compare strings!

[enneff]

Or do type assertions.

[pjmlp]

Ah ok, that is a better approach.