On the uses and misuses of panics in Go

Re:On the uses and misuses of panics in Go by crawshaw on Thursday August 09, 2018 @09:41PM (#17730071)

I don't recover from panics in production Go and none of the code I depend on panics to handle errors.

Errors are handled the long and boring way inline and I like it that way. (I would like better tools for making better errors, but not for pretending errors don't exist.) When I work in C, I do the same.

Your charactization of Go as I know it is wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the uses and misuses of panics in Go by weitzj on Friday August 10, 2018 @03:05AM (#17731255)

I prefer the boring way as well and it should stay like this.

My gut feeling would be that otherwise, instead of handling errors locally, you “sprinkle” your code with “try” keywords. Afterwards you want to distinguish between exception types and eventually you end up switching over these types in a big switch higher up.

[ Parent | on HN ]