I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices

Re:I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices by willglynn on Friday April 21, 2017 @03:43PM (#14168768)

> The kind of exceptions that unwind the stack until some part of the code up the stack catches the exception.

Rust panics result in unwinding the stack:

https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/unwinding.html

try!/? is preferred for handling errors, but if you "know" that a Result or an Option has a value, you can unwrap() or expect() it, and you'll get a panic if you're wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices by kjksf on Friday April 21, 2017 @05:53PM (#14169726)

so does panic() in Go. But no-one claims that Go uses exceptions for error handling, because it doesn't and neither does Rust.

In both languages panic() is for "this shouldn't happen" fatal errors, not for signaling errors to the caller, the way Java or C# use exceptions.

My comment was in response to person basically saying "checked exceptions in Java would be good if only they implemented it the way Swift/Rust did".

[ Parent | on HN ]