On 18 June 2013 05:21, vlad <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff, nice writeup. I found it very useful. Sometime it takes calling > things as they are and bringing out the "inconvenient truths" >
I work on Go and spend a lot of time talking to people about this stuff. What Jeff said is not new and represents just one *perspective*, not an objective truth. And there's nothing inconvenient about it, because I am not alone in saying that I'm glad Go doesn't have exceptions. I believe their absence makes the language much stronger. Feel free to disagree with me. I'm not offended or inconvenienced by it. > * I am especially amused by someone defending lack of exceptions as > "complex and subtle issue" which just another way of saying, it is > lifestyle choice and there is no right and wrong. What a nonsense! In terms > of time saving and robustness that exceptions bring to large, commercial > apps. They are perhaps the most valuable feature of C++. > Yet C++ style guide forbids the use of exceptions. Perhaps our systems aren't large or commercial enough for us to see the value. ;-) > Once again I must point out that I am speaking from practical point of > view. Having done many large, enterprise class, commercial systems in C++. > I understand that from "academic" perch things can look a lot fuzzier. This is ironic, given that a common criticism of Go is that it ignores academic programming language research and is too pragmatic. Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
