Relative amateurs assuming that the people who work on Go know less about programming languages than themselves, when in almost all cases they know infinitely more.
The amateur naively assumes that whichever language packs in the most features is the best, especially if it includes their personal favorites.
The way an amateur getting into knife making might look at a Japanese chef's knife and find it lacking. And think they could make an even better one with a 3D printed handle that includes finger grooves, a hidden compartment, a lighter, and a Bluetooth speaker.
Assuming that all complainants are just idiots is purely misinformed and quite frankly a bit of gaslighting.
Yes, non-experts can have valid criticisms but more often than not they're too ignorant to even understand what trade-offs are involved.
is the entire go community this toxically ignorant?
This entire thread is full if amateurs making ignorant comments. So what expert criticisms are you referring to?
You accused me of "gaslighting" and being "toxically ignorant" while I have been entirely civil.
I understand many of Go's design choices, I find them intellectually pleasing, but I tend to dislike them in practice.
That being said, my complaints about Go's error-handling are not the `if err != nil`. It's verbose but readable. My complaints are:
1. Returning bogus values alongside errors.
2. Designing the error mechanism based on the assumptions that errors are primarily meant to be logged and that you have to get out of your way to develop errors that can actually be handled.
Unless documented otherwise, a non-nil error renders all other return values invalid, so there's no real sense of a "bogus value" alongside a non-nil error.
> Designing the error mechanism based on the assumptions that errors are primarily meant to be logged and that you have to get out of your way to develop errors that can actually be handled
I don't see how any good-faith analysis of Go errors as specified/intended by the language and its docs, nor Go error handling as it generally exists in practice, could lead someone to this conclusion.
But you have to return something to satisfy the function signature's type, which often feels bad.
>> Designing the error mechanism based on the assumptions that errors are primarily meant to be logged and that you have to get out of your way to develop errors that can actually be handled
> I don't see how any good-faith analysis of Go errors as specified/intended by the language and its docs, nor Go error handling as it generally exists in practice, could lead someone to this conclusion.
I agree to a point, but if you look at any random Go codebase, they tend to use errors.New and fmt.Errorf which do not lend themselves to branching on error conditions. Go really wants you to define a type that you can cast or switch on, which is far better.
Go very very much does not want application code to be type-asserting the values they receive. `switch x.(type)` is an escape hatch, not a normal pattern! And for errors especially so!
> they tend to use errors.New and fmt.Errorf which do not lend themselves to branching on error conditions
You almost never need to branch on error conditions in the sense you mean here. 90% of the time, err != nil is enough. 9% of the time, errors.Is is all you need, which is totally satisfied by fmt.Errorf.
A type assert/switch is exactly how you implement Error.Is [^0]. Sure it's preferable to use the interface method in case the error is wrapped, but the point stands.
> You almost never need to branch on error conditions in the sense you mean here. 90% of the time, err != nil is enough. 9% of the time, errors.Is is all you need, which is totally satisfied by fmt.Errorf.
I'd argue it's higher than 9% if you're dealing with IO, which most applications will. Complex interfaces like HTTP and filesystems will want to retry on certain conditions such as timeouts, for example. Sure most error checks by volume might be satisfied with a simple nil check, it's not fair to say branching on specific errors is not common.
[0]: The documentations own example of implementing Error.Is uses a type switch. https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.24.3:src/...
With `Errors.New`, you're expected to provide a human-readable message. By definition, this message may change. Relying on this string comparison is a recipe for later breakages. But even if it worked, this would require documenting the exact error string returned by the function. Have you _ever_ seen a function containing such information in the documentation?
As for `switch x.(type)`, it doesn't support any kind of unwrapping, which means that it's going to fail if someone in the stack just decides to add a `fmt.Errorf` along the way. So you need all the functions in the stack to promise that they're never going to add an annotation detailing what the code was doing when the error was raised. Which is a shame, because `fmt.Errorf` is often a good practice.
https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.24.3:src/...
The answer is that errors.New just wraps the error message in an errorString struct, and the second line of `is` is a string comparison.
And as you demonstrate I could have tested it easily enough to confirm I was reading the code correctly...
errors.Is is already implemented in the stdlib, why are you implementing it again?
I know that you can implement it on your custom error type, like your link shows, to customize the behavior of errors.Is. But this is rarely necessary and generally uncommon..
> If you define errors with Errors.New you use string comparison, which is only convenient if you export a top level var of the error instead of using Errors.New directly.
What? If you want your callers to be able to identify ErrFoo then you're always going to define it as a package-level variable, and when you have a function that needs to return ErrFoo then it will `return ErrFoo` or `return fmt.Errorf("annotation: %w", ErrFoo)` -- and in neither case will callers use string comparison to detect ErrFoo, they'll use errors.Is, if they need to do so in the first place, which is rarely the case.
This is bog-standard conventional and idiomatic stuff, the responsibility of you as the author of a package/module to support, if your consumers are expected to behave differently based on specific errors that your package/module may return.
> Complex interfaces like HTTP and filesystems will want to retry on certain conditions such as timeouts, for example. Sure most error checks by volume might be satisfied with a simple nil check, it's not fair to say branching on specific errors is not common.
Sure, sometimes, rarely, callers need to make decisions based on something more granular than just err != nil. In those minority of cases, they usually just need to call errors.Is to check for error identity, and in the minority of those minority of cases that they need to get even more specific details out of the error to determine what they need to do next, then they use errors.As. And, for that super-minority of situations, then sure, you'd need to define a FooError type, with whatever properties callers would need to get at, and it's likely that type would need to implement an Unwrap() method to yield some underlying wrapped error. But at no point are you, or your callers, doing type-switching on errors, or manual unwrapping, or anything like that. errors.As works with any type that implements `Error() string`, and optionally `Unwrap() error` if it wants to get freaky.
Only if your only desire is to bubble the error up and quite literally not handle it at all.
If you want to actually handle an error, knowing what actually went wrong is critical.
Error handling is so important, we must dedicate two-thirds of the lines of every golang program to it. It is so important that it must be made a verbose, manual process.
But there's also nothing that can be done about most errors, so we do all this extra work only to bubble errors up to the top of the program. And we do all this work as a human exception-handle to build up a carefully curated manual stack trace that loses all the actually-useful elements of a stack trace like filenames and line numbers.
Handling errors this way is possible in only very brittle and simplistic software.
I mean, you're contradicting your very own argument. If this was the primary/idiomatic way of handling errors... then Go should just go the way of most languages with Try/Catch blocks. If there's no valuable information or control flow to managing errors... then what's the point of forcing that paradigm to be so verbose and explicit in control flow?
None.
Ah yes the classic golang philosophy of “just avoid bugs by not making mistakes”.
Nothing stops you from literally just forgetting to handle ann error without running a bunch of third party linting tools. If you drop an error on the floor and only assign the return value, go does not care.
Indeed, while not being a fan of how this aspect of Go, I have to admit that it seldom causes issues.
It is, however, part of the reasons for which you cannot attach invariants to types in Go, which is how my brain works, and probably the main reasons for which I do not enjoy working with Go.
Where is this evidence? Where is the data that I am supposed to believe?
Let me detail my claim.
Broadly speaking, in programming, there are three kinds of errors:
1. errors that you can do nothing about except crash;
2. errors that you can do nothing about except log;
3. errors that you can do something about (e.g. retry later, stop a different subsystem depending on the error, try something else, inform the user that they have entered a bad url, convert this into a detailed HTTP error, etc.)
Case 1 is served by `panic`. Case 2 is served by `errors.New` and `fmt.Errorf`. Case 3 is served by implementing `error` (a special interface) and `Unwrap` (not an interface at all), then using `errors.As`.
Case 3 is a bit verbose/clumsy (since `Unwrap` is not an interface, you cannot statically assert against it, so you need to write the interface yourself), but you can work with it. However, if you recall, Go did not ship with `Unwrap` or `errors.As`. For the first 8 years of the language, there was simply no way to do this. So the entire ecosystem (including the stdlib) learnt not to do it.
As a consequence, take a random library (including big parts of the stdlib) and you'll find exactly that. Functions that return with `errors.New`, `fmt.Errorf` or just pass `err`, without adding any ability to handle the error. Or sometimes functions that return a custom error (good) but don't document it (bad) or keep it private (bad).
Just as bad, from a (admittedly limited) sample of Go developers I've spoken to, many seem to consider that defining custom errors is black magic. Which I find quite sad, because it's a core part of designing an API.
In comparison, I find that `if err != nil` is not a problem. Repeated patterns in code are a minor annoyance for experienced developers and often a welcome landscape feature for juniors.
`err != nil` is very common, `errors.Is(err, ErrFoo)` is relatively uncommon, and `errors.As(err, &fooError)` is extraordinarily rare.
You're speaking from a position of ignorance of the language and its conventions.
The main problem is that, if you recall, `errors.Is` also appeared 8 years after Go 1.0, with the consequences I've mentioned above. Most of the Go code I've seen (including big parts of the standard library) doesn't document how one could handle a specific error. Which feeds back to my original claim that "errors are primarily meant to be logged and that you have to get out of your way to develop errors that can actually be handled".
On a more personal touch, as a language designer, I'm not a big fan of taking an entirely different path depending on the kind of information I want to attach to an error. Again, I can live with it. I even understand why it's designed like this. But it irks the minimalist in me :)
> You're speaking from a position of ignorance of the language and its conventions.
This is entirely possible.
I've only released a few applications and libraries in Go, after all. None of my reviewers (or linters) have seen anything wrong with how I handled errors, so I guess so do they? Which suggests that everybody writing Go in my org is in the same position of ignorance. Which... I guess brings me back to the previous points about error-fu being considered black magic by many Go developers?
One of the general difficulties with Go is that it's actually a much more subtle language than it appears (or is marketed as). That's not a problem per se. In fact, that's one of the reasons for which I consider that the design of Go is generally intellectually pleasing. But I find a strong disconnect between two forms of minimalism: the designer's zen minimalism of Go and the bruteforce minimalism of pretty much all the Go code I've seen around, including much of the stdlib, official tutorials and of course unofficial tutorials.
Not "some cases" but "almost all cases". It's a categorical difference.
> Most of the Go code I've seen (including big parts of the standard library) doesn't document how one could handle a specific error. Which feeds back to my original claim that "errors are primarily meant to be logged and that you have to get out of your way to develop errors that can actually be handled".
First, most stdlib APIs that can fail in ways that are meaningfully interpret-able by callers, do document those failure modes. It's just that relatively few APIs meet these criteria. Of those that do, most are able to signal everything they need to signal using sentinel errors (ErrFoo values), and only a very small minority define and return bespoke error types.
But more importantly, if json.Marshal fails, that might be catastrophic for one caller, but totally not worth worrying about for another caller. Whether an error is fatal, or needs to be introspected and programmed against, or can just be logged and thereafter ignored -- this isn't something that the code yielding the error can know, it's a decision made by the caller.
Good point. But my point remains.
> First, most stdlib APIs that can fail in ways that are meaningfully interpret-able by callers, do document those failure modes. It's just that relatively few APIs meet these criteria. Of those that do, most are able to signal everything they need to signal using sentinel errors (ErrFoo values), and only a very small minority define and return bespoke error types. > > But more importantly, if json.Marshal fails, that might be catastrophic for one caller, but totally not worth worrying about for another caller. Whether an error is fatal, or needs to be introspected and programmed against, or can just be logged and thereafter ignored -- this isn't something that the code yielding the error can know, it's a decision made by the caller.
I may misunderstand what you write, but I have the feeling that you are contradicting yourself between these two paragraphs.
I absolutely agree that the code yielding the error cannot know (again, with the exception of panic, but I believe that we agree that this is not part of the scope of our conversation). Which in turn means that every function should document what kind of errors it may return, so that the decision is always delegated to client code. Not just the "relatively few APIs" that you mention in the previous paragraph.
Even `text.Marshal`, which is probably some of the most documented/specified piece of code in the stdlib, doesn't fully specify which errors it may return.
And, again, that's just the stdlib. Take a look at the ecosystem.
As long as the function returns an error at all, then "the decision [as to how to handle a failure] is always delegated to client [caller] code" -- by definition. The caller can always check if err != nil as a baseline boolean evaluation of whether or not the call failed, and act on that boolean condition. If err == nil, we're good; if err != nil, we failed.
What we're discussing here is how much more granularity beyond that baseline boolean condition should be expected from, and guaranteed by, APIs and their documentation. That's a subjective decision, and it's up to the API code/implementation to determine and offer as part of its API contract.
Concretely, callers definitely don't need "every function [to] document what kind of errors it may return" -- that level of detail is only necessary when it's, well, necessary.
You make it out like the Go Team are programming language design wizards and people here are breezily proposing solutions that they must have considered but lets not forget that the Go team made the same blunder made by Java (static typing with no parametric polymorphism) which lies at the root of this error handling problem, to which they are throwing up their hands and not fixing.
To be fair, they were working on parametric polymorphism since the beginning. There are countless public proposals, and many more that never made it beyond the walls of Google.
Problem was that they struggled to find a design that didn't make the same blunder as Java. I'm sure it would have been easy to add Java-style generics early on, but... yikes. Even the Java team themselves warned the Go team to not make that mistake.
> Java has evolved to contain much of “ML the good parts”
Using these new features one can write very expressive modern code while still being interoperable with the Java 8 dependency someone at their company wrote 20 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindley%E2%80%93Milner_type_sy...
To defy it's reputation for verbosity, Java's lambda syntax is both terse and highly flexible. Sum and product types are possible with records and sealed classes. Pattern matching.
> blunder made by Java
> Even the Java team themselves warned the Go team to not make that mistake.
That's strange. I seem to recall the PL community invented the generics system for Java [0,1]. Actually, I'm pretty sure Philip Wadler had to show them how to work out contravariance correctly. And topically to this thread, Rob Pike asked for his help again designing the generics system for Go [2,3]. A number of mistakes under consideration were curtailed as a result, detailed in that LWN article.
There are countless other examples, so can you elaborate on what you're talking about? Because essentially all meaningful progress on programming languages (yes, including the ones you use) was achieved, or at least fundamentally enabled, by "PL people".
[0] https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/gj/
[1] https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/gj/Documents/gj-oopsla...
> It causes many issues downstream.
Just to give some examples, the instanceof operator does not work with generic types, it's not possible to instantiate a generic type (can't do a new T()), can't overload methods that differ only in generic parameter type (so List<String> vs List<Integer>) and so on. Some limitations can be worked around with sending around explicit type info (like also sending the Class<T> when using T), reflection etc., but it's cumbersome, and not everything can be solved that way.
[1] Okay fine, you can fake it with enough SRTPs, but Don Syme will come and burn your house down.
But you breezily claiming they made the same blunder as Java omits the fact that they didn't make the same blunder as Rust and Swift and end up with nightmarish compile times because of their type system.
Almost every language feature has difficult trade-offs. They considered iteration time a priority one feature and designed the language as such. It's very easy for someone looking at a language on paper to undervalue that feature but when you sit down and talk to users or watch them work, you realize that a fast feedback loop makes them more productive than almost any brilliant type system feature you can imagine.
And there's also the proc macro story (almost every project must compile proc_macro2 quote and syn before the actual project compilation even starts).
Blaming it on LLVM like another comment does misses the point. Any back end is slow if you throw a truck-load of code at it.
I'm not saying monomorphization is intrinsically bad. (My current hobby language works this way.) But it's certainly a trade-off with real costs and the Go folks didn't want their users to have to pay those costs.
So I don't think you can say that this has nothing to do with the type system. Here is a restriction in the Go type system that was specifically introduced to allow a broad range of implementation choices. To avoid being forced to choose slow compilers or slow code: https://research.swtch.com/generic
The Go type system and the way it does generics is directly designed to allow fast compile times.
Yes, but that is now a different runtime cost which Go also didn't want to pay.
The language goes to great pains to give you pretty good control over layout in memory and avoid the "spray of tiny objects on the heap with pointers between them" that you get in Java and most other managed languages.
I think Swift maybe does something more clever with witness tables, but I don't recally exactly how it works.
It's not an easy problem.
Pestov actually wrote a long explanation of what it is that Swift does there[1,2]. And I’m almost sure you’ve already seen it, but it’s been on my reading list forever and I’m hoping that maybe if I can’t get myself to read it, than somebody else will see this comment, get interested and do it.
If you're not aiming for the highest possible performance, you can type erase your generics and avoid the monomorphization bloat. Rust couldn't because they wanted to compete with C++, but Go definitely could have.
However, OCaml has a very fast compiler, comparable in speed to Go. So a more expressive type system is not necessarily leading to long compilation times.
Furthermore, Scala and Haskell incremental type checking is faster than full compilation and fast enough for interactive use. I would love to see some evidence that Golang devs are actually more productive than Scala or Haskell devs. So many variables probably influence dev productivity and controlling for them while doing a sufficiently powered experiment is very expensive.
For an apples-to-apples comparison of compilation speed, you should either include the time it takes go generate to run, and the IDE to re-index all the crap it emits, or you should count the number of lines of code in the largest intermediate representation that C++ or Rust has.
But that would be unfair to the very design choice of omitting metaprogramming while exposing the go/ast library to users to foster code generation.
OCaml and Haskell don't suffer from similar pain points, because interpreters, and JIT like tooling is also available.
One can happily develop with one toolchain, and press the red button for an optimised compiled build, when it actually matters.
Also both Swift and Rust have made the mistake to make used of the compiler backend that everyone avoids when they care about build performance, LLVM.
You can put that in-band, with something like:
v := funcWithError()? err := {
return fmt.Errorf("lazy programmer wrapping: %w", err)
}
Or you can do some kind of magic to allow it to happen out of band:
// found somewhere else in the codebase
func wrapErr(err error) error {
if err == nil {
return nil
}
return fmt.Errorf("lazy programmer wrapping: %w", err)
}
v := funcWithError()?(wrapErr)
A more refined version of what I originally said would say "conditional branch" instead of "branch", but I'll admit that my original message should have been worded more carefully. I think people understood it, but taken literally it's not a strong argument.
But of course that would hurt them and the community in so many levels that they don't want to admit...
- try/catch exceptions obscure what things can throw errors. Just looking at a function body, you can't see what parts of the functions could throw errors.
- Relatedly, try/catch exceptions can unwind multiple stack frames at once, sometimes creating tricky, obscure control flow. Stack unwinding can be useful, especially if you really do want to traverse an arbitrary number of stack frames (e.g. to pass an error up in a parser or interpreter, or for error cases you really don't want to think about handling as part of the normal code flow) but it's tricky enough that it's undesirable for ordinary error handling.
- I think most errors, like I/O errors, are fairly normal occurrences, i.e. all code should be written with handling I/O errors in mind; this is not a good use case for this type of error handling mechanism—you might want to pass the error up the stack, but it's useful to be confronted with that decision each time! With exceptions, it might be hard to even know whether a given function call might throw an I/O error. Function calls that are fallible are not distinguishable from function calls that are infallible.
- This is also a downside of Go's current error handling; with try/catch exceptions you can't usually tell what exceptions a function could throw. (Java has checked exceptions, but everyone hates them. The same problem doesn't happen for enum error types in Rust Result, people generally like this.)
(...But that's certainly not all.)
Speaking just in terms of language design, I feel that Rust Result, C++ std::expected, etc. are all going in the right direction. Even Go just having errors be regular values is still better in my opinion.
(Still, traditional exceptions have been proposed too, of course, but it wasn't a mistake to not have exceptions in Go, it was intentional.)
Go has exceptions! It even uses them (see encoding/json, for example). And they are equally there for you to use.
It wasn't a mistake to promote not overusing them, but that sentiment is not unusual. The Ruby community comes to mind as having also promoted favouring error values over exceptions[1] long before Go existed.
Java leaned into a bad idea, but is not exactly representative of the state of the union.
[1] Ruby on Rails went against the grain, while simultaneously marketing itself towards Java developers doing "XML sit-ups", so that sect within the greater Ruby community tends to be more of the Java school of thought.
It does have them, though, and always has. Use is even found in the standard library (e.g. encoding/json). They are just not commonly used for this because of the inherit problems with using them in this way as you have already mentioned. But you can. It is a perfectly valid approach where the tradeoffs are acceptable.
But, who knows what the future holds? Ruby in the early days also held the same preference for error values over exceptions... Until Ruby on Rails came along and shifted the prevailing attitude. Perhaps Go will someday have its "Ruby on Rails" moment too.
But I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, since there's little to be gained from a long debate about what jargon either does or should subjectively mean. Just trying to explain where I'm coming from.
What is there to debate? An exception, by every definition I have ever encountered, is a data structure that contains runtime information (e.g. a stack trace) to stand in for a compiler error where the compiler was not sufficiently capable of determining the fault at compile time. It couldn't possibly mean anything else in reason.
Of course, we're really talking about "exception handlers", not "exceptions".
> there's no try, no catch, and no throw, and no equivalent to any of those.
There can be in name and reasonable equivalency: https://go.dev/play/p/RrO1OrzIPNe I'm not sure what it buys you, though. You haven't functionally changed anything. For this reason, I'm not convinced by the signifaince of syntax.
Think about it. Go could easily provide syntax sugar that replaces `try { throw() } catch (err) {}` with `try(func() { throw() }).catch(func(err) {})`. That would truly satisfy your requirements in every way. But what, specially, in that simple search and replace operation says "exceptions" (meaning exception handlers)?
> C also has setjmp/longjmp which can be used in similar ways, but I wouldn't call that exception handling either.
Agreed. You could conceivably craft your own exceptions to carry through the use of setjmp/longjmp, but that wouldn't be a language feature. However, Go does have an exception structure as a built-in.
True to my word, I won't argue over the definition itself.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_handling_(programmin...
P.S.:
> There can be in name and reasonable equivalency: https://go.dev/play/p/RrO1OrzIPNe I'm not sure what it buys you, though. You haven't functionally changed anything. For this reason, I'm not convinced by the signifaince of syntax.
To me this is no different than implementing "exception handling" with setjmp/longjmp, just less work to do. For example, Go doesn't have pattern matching; implementing an equivalent feature with closures does not make this any less true.
What's that old adage? I think it goes something like "The wiki is always accurate—except when it’s about something you know personally." If you don't enough about the topic to discuss it yourself, what are you doing here?
> Also, obviously when we say "exceptions" in a programming language, we're definitely talking about "exception handling"
Not necessarily. Often it is important to discuss the data structure and not the control flow. Strictly, "exception" refers to either the broad concept of exceptional circumstances (i.e. programmer error) or the data structure to represent it. "Exception" being short for "exception handling" where context is clear is fine, but be sure context is clear if you want to go down that road – unless you like confusing others, I suppose.
> well the Go error object is an "exception"
You mean the error interface? That's not an exception. It's just a plain old interface; literally `type error interface { Error() string }`. In fact, the only reason it gained special keyword status is because it being part of the standard library, where it was originally defined in early versions, caused cyclical import headaches. If Go supported circular imports, it would be a standard library definition instead of a keyword today.
The underlying data structure produced when calling panic is an exception, though. It carries the typical payload you'd expect in an exception, like the stack trace.
Of course, errors and exceptions are conceptually very different. Errors are for things that happen in the environment – invalid input, network down, hard drive crash, etc. Exceptions are for programmer mistakes – faults that could have theoretically been detected at compile time if you had a sufficiently advanced compiler. Obviously you can overload exceptions to carry unexceptional information (as you can overload errors to carry exceptional information), and a pragmatist will from time to time, but that's not the intent for such a feature[1].
> To me this is no different than implementing "exception handling" with setjmp/longjmp, just less work to do.
Aside from the fact that there is actually an exception involved. Again, while you might be able to hand roll your own exception data structure in C, it does not provide it for you like Go does. If setjmp/longjmp were paired with an exception data structure of the box, it would reasonably considered exceptions, naturally.
However, the second bit was the real meat of that. A tiny bit of search and replace and you have a system that is effectively indistinguishable from exception handling in languages like Java, Javascript, etc. You haven't explained what about that search and replace, that does not introduce any other new language features or introduce any new concepts, turns what is not exceptions into exceptions.
[1] Java and its offspring's failed experiments in seeing if errors and exceptions could reasonably be considered the same thing excepted.
But you seem to want to avoid talking about it? Let's try one more time: What is it about dead-simple search and replace, without adding any other new features or technical concepts, that turns what is "not exceptions" into something that is "exceptions"? Because I don't understand the difference that makes.
Language decisions scoped try/catch are not incidental details.
Go already has that: https://go.dev/play/p/RrO1OrzIPNe
> Not even when listing cons that wouldn't have been there with try-catch.
The cons are already well known. That's why you're already not using the feature that has existed since the very first release (in most cases that is; there is certainly a time and place for everything — even the standard library uses it sometimes!).
It’s okay for Go to be different than other languages. For folks who can’t stand it, there are lots of other options. As it is, Go is massively successful and most active Go programmers don’t mind the error handling situation. The complaints are mostly from folks who didn’t choose it themselves or don’t even actually use it.
The fact that this is the biggest complaint about Go proves to me the language is pretty darn incredible.
This is a case of massive selection bias. How do you know that Go’s error problem isn’t so great that it drives away all of these programmers? It certainly made me not ever want to reach for Go again after using it for one project.
1. Minimalism.
Go has always had an ethos of extreme minimalism and have deliberately cultivated an ecosystem and userbase that also places a premium on that. Whereas, say, the Perl ecosystem would be delighted to have the language add one or seven knew ways of solving the same problem, the Go userbase doesn't want that. They want one way to do things and highly value consistency, idiomatic code, and not having to make unnecessary implementation choices when programming.
In every programming language, there is a cost to adding features, but that cost is relatively higher in Go.
2. Concurrency.
Concurrency, channels, and goroutines are central to the design of the language. While I'm sure you can combine exception handling with CSP-based concurrency, I wouldn't guarantee that the resulting language is easy to use correctly. What happens when an uncaught exception unwinds the entire stack of a goroutine? How does that affect other goroutines that it spawned or that spawned it? What does it do to goroutines that are waiting on channels that expect to hear from it?
There may be a good design there, but it may also be that it's just really really hard to reason about programs that heavily use CSP-style concurrency and exceptions for error handling.
The Go designers cared more about concurrency than error handling, so they chose a simpler error handling model that doesn't interfere with goroutines as much. (I understand that panics complicate this story. I'm not a Go expert. This is just what I've inferred from the outside.)
(1) yes Go’s minimal language surface area means the thing you spend the most time doing in any program (handling error scenarios and testing correctness) is the most verbose unenjoyable braindead aspect. I’m glad there is a cultivated home for people that tolerate this. And I’m glad it’s not where I live…
Reading this article? in fact yes(?):
> After so many years of trying, with three full-fledged proposals by the Go team and literally hundreds (!) of community proposals, most of them variations on a theme, all of which failed to attract sufficient (let alone overwhelming) support, the question we now face is: how to proceed? Should we proceed at all?
> We think not.
This is a problem of the go designers, in the sense that are not capable to accept the solutions that are viable because none are total to their ideals.
And never will find one.
____
I have use more than 20 langs and even try to build one and is correct that this is a real unsolved problem, where your best option is to pick one way and accept that it will optimize for some cases at huge cost when you divert.
But is know that the current way of Go (that is a insignificant improvement over the C way) sucks and ANY of the other ways are truly better (to the point that I think go is the only lunatic in town that take this path!), but none will be perfect for all the scenarios.
This is a bold statement for something so subjective. I'll note that the proposal to leave the status quo as-is is probably one of the most favorably voted Go proposals of all time: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/32825
Go language design is not a popularity contest or democracy (if nothing else because it is not clear who would get a vote). But you won't find any other proposal with thousands of emoji votes, 90% of which are in favor.
I get the criticism and I agree with it to a degree. But boldly stating that criticism as objective and universal is uninformed.
I don't think anyone actually spend years trying to solve it. It's just that over the years, many people have tried to solve it - each for a grand total of maybe a week or so. If you look at the list, you'll see a lot of different proposal authors: https://seankhliao.com/blog/12020-11-23-go-error-handling-pr... Most of these do not post any other issues and many of those don't even respond in the discussion to their own proposals.
It's a thing that a lot of people coming to the language get frustrated by, think "here is an obvious way to make this better" and file a (usually half-baked) proposal about. It's not a thing that people spend years of focused effort on to polish into something that works.
Compare that to generics: Not only did Ian file a proposal about that roughly every year. The final design also had over a year of intense discussion, with at least a dozen or two consistent participants (and a hundred or so occasional ones). With at least three or four direct iterations.
Error handling is something that a lot of people care a little about.
And yes, I agree that the survey is a better source of data, generally. But I will also say that it intentionally asks as broad a definition of "Go user" as possible. Meaning it also (intentionally) asks people who might use Go every once in a while at work. And a good chunk of respondents are newcomers. These groups are more likely to identify this as a problem. While people who are active on GitHub tend to bias towards people who use it as a daily driver and are much more used to its idioms.
The data is mixed. I fully acknowledge that. But anecdotally, there seems to be a pretty clear pattern that people who come new to the language complain about this, but then get used to it and at the point where they become active in the community, they prefer the status quo. I don't think the experience of newcomers should be dismissed, but I also think it should be acknowledged that it's something most people get used to.
That is, I criticized the strength of the original claim. I didn't try to make an equally strong opposite claim.
This is so entrenched into everybody writing Haskell code, that I really can't comprehend why that was not considered. Surely there must be somebody in the Go community knowing about it and perhaps appreciating it as well? Even if we leave out everybody too intimidated by the supposed academic-ness of Haskell and even avoiding any religios arguments.
I really appreciate the link to this page, and overall its existence, but this really leaves me confused how people caring so much about their language can skip over such well-established solutions.
Am I missing something? Is this really a good idea for a language that can't express monads naturally?
Well, I replied to a post that gave a link to a document that supposedly exhaustively (?) listed all alternatives that were considered. Monads are not on that list. From that, it's easy to come to the conclusion that it was not considered, aka forgotten.
If it was not forgotten, then why is it not on the list?
> Is this really a good idea for a language that can't express monads naturally?
That's a separate question from asking why people think that it wasn't considered. An interesting one though. To an experienced Haskell programmer, it would be worth asking why not take the leap and make it easy to express monads naturally. Solving the error handling case elegantly would just be one side effect that you get out of it. There are many other benefits, but I don't want to make this into a Haskell tutorial.
> That's a separate question from asking why people think that it wasn't considered. An interesting one though. To an experienced Haskell programmer, it would be worth asking why not take the leap and make it easy to express monads naturally. Solving the error handling case elegantly would just be one side effect that you get out of it. There are many other benefits, but I don't want to make this into a Haskell tutorial.
Hmm, but you could say that for any idea that sounds good. Why not add a borrow checker into Go while we're at it, and GADTs, and...
Being blunt, this is just incorrect framing. Concepts like monads and do notation are not inherently "good" or "bad", and neither is a language feature like a borrow checker (which also does not mean you won't miss it when it's not there in languages like Go, either). Out of context, you can't judge whether it's a good idea or not. In context, we're talking about the Go programming language, which is not a blank slate for programming language design, it's a pre-existing language with extremely different values from Haskell. It has a pre-existing ecosystem built on this. Go prioritizes simplicity of the language and pragmatism over expressiveness and rich features nearly every time. This is not everyone's favorite tradeoff, but also, programming language design is not a popularity contest, nor is it an endeavor of mathematical elegance. Designers have goals, often of practical interest, that require trade-offs that by definition not everyone will like. You can't just pretend this constraint doesn't exist or isn't important. (And yes we know, Rob Pike said once in 2012 that Go was for idiots that can't understand a brilliant language. If anyone is coming here to make sure to reply that under each comment as usual on HN, consider it pre-empted.)
So to answer the question, would it be worth the leap to make it easy to express monads naturally in Go? Obviously, this is a matter of opinion and not fact, but I think this is well beyond the threshold where there is room for ambiguity: No. It just does not mesh with it at all, does not match nearly any other decision made anywhere else with regards to syntax and language features, and just generally would feel utterly out of place.
A less general version of this question might be, "OK: how about just sum types and go from there?"—you could probably add sum types and express stuff like Maybe/Either/etc. and add language constructs on top of this, but even that would be a pretty extreme departure and basically constitute a totally new, distinct programming language. Personally, I think there's only one way to look at this: either Go should've had this and the language is basically doomed to always have this flaw, or there is room in the space of programming languages for a language that doesn't do this without being strictly worse than languages that do (and I'm thinking here in terms of not just elegance or expressiveness but of the second, third, forth, fifth... order effects of such a language design choice, which become increasingly counter-intuitive as you follow the chain.)
And after all, doesn't this have to be the case? If Haskell is the correct language design, then we already have it and would be better off writing Haskell code and working on the GHC. This is not a sarcastic remark: I don't rule out such dramatic possibilities that some programming languages might just wind up being "right" and win out in the long term. That said, if the winner is going to be Haskell or a derivative of it, I can only imagine it will be a while before that future comes to fruition. A long while...
That said as mentioned in a lot of places, changing errors to be sum types is not the approach they're looking for, since it would create a split between APIs across the ecosystem.
Source: I'm one of the people who designed it.
What do you mean? Much of the discussion around errors from above link is clearly based on the ideas of Haskell/monads. Did you foolishly search for "monad" and call it a day without actually reading it in full to reach this conclusion?
In fact, I would even suggest that the general consensus found there is that a monadic-like solution is the way forward, but it remains unclear how to make that make sense in Go without changing just about everything else about the language to go along with it. Thus the standstill we're at now.
But for those who can't, for whatever reason, update their code to work with the substantial language changes, they are interested to see if there is also a solution that otherwise fits into what they've already got in a backwards-compatible way.
The idea that "the happy path is the most common" is a total lie.
a + b
So, errors are everywhere. And you must commit to a way to handle it and no is not possible, like no, not possible to satisfy all the competing ideas about it.
So there is not viable to ask the community about it, because:
a + b
So, you pick a side and that is.
https://go.dev/wiki/Go2ErrorHandlingFeedback
or the GitHub issue search: https://github.com/golang/go/issues?q=+is%3Aissue+label%3Aer...
I promise that you are not the first to propose whatever you're proposing, and often it was considered in great depth. I appreciate this honest approach from the Go Team and I continue to enjoy using Go every day at work.