On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:11 PM Robert Engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Can you clarify what you mean mean by “the code does exactly what it shows on > the page”? How do you know by looking at the code, or even compiling the > code, that all possible errors returned by a function are handled? That to me > is biggest difficult in reading (or using) others Go code. Exceptions (well > written) handle this by declaring all possible error (or categories) thrown > by the method. > > This seems a real problem with long term maintenance of Go code.
When you say that exceptions means declaring all possible errors thrown by the method, it seems to me that you are talking about checked exceptions. There is pretty good evidence that real programs in practice do not list all possible error categories, even though ideally they should. Instead, in practice, they fall back to unchecked exceptions. So I think that your contrast to Go is an ideal that experience has shown is very difficult to achieve. It's not an approach that leads to better long term maintenance in practice, even if it should in an ideal world. (Incidentally, to answer the question in your first sentence directly, Go code does indeed do exactly what it shows on the page. You are challenging that not by saying that it does something else, but by saying that that is not enough.) Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcWzfD%2BjjYQKHbu4R%3DxgtSoR_%3Duhp%3DmOEtqwKUvFJp7tWQ%40mail.gmail.com.
