>if err != nil >if err != nil >if err != nil >if err != nil >if err != nil >if err != nil >if err != nil
luaJIT doesnt have this problem
>gawd, error checking is sooo boring, if only we could just .unwrap() and forget about all that boring stuff
Go doesn't have try catch?
>>107638941>try {>} catch {>}>try:>except:>try {>} catch (...) {>}
>>107638941Still obsessed, I see.
>>107638941defer fuck_my_wife()for {}
>>107638941what's the problem?
I started learning Go because I wanted to see if it was as bad as /g/ made it seem. Now it's my favorite language and I make 6 figures writing it. I'm completely Go-pilled and I love how the language deals with errors. It's simple but it just fucking works.>>107638969Thank fuck it does not. Go also doesn't have exceptions to catch.
>>107638941>if err != nil >if err != nil >if err != nil >if err != nil >if err != nil >if err != nil
>>107639356>Go also doesn't have exceptions to catch.Not syntactically, but effectively, it does. The built-in HTTP library had panic()s in it that I had to catch myself. Fucking ridiculous.
>>107639399>The built-in HTTP library had panic()s in it that I had to catch myselfDo you have an example? This sounds like a skill issue or you're misremembering something. The http server in the standard library has a built in recoverer anyway (if a handler panics for whatever reason, for example).
>>107639356>Now it's my favorite language and I make 6 figures writing it. Ino companies use Go, also you're not making 6 figures with some Go hobby project
error?eh just let it crash, the supervisor will restart it and i'll deal with it later
>>107639505>no companies use Gowe use it at my company :)
>>107638979Except you can do that once in your call stack, if you want, instead of at every error junction.
>>107639521And then your program crashes because something in your callstack raised an exception you didn't know about.
>>107639356Golang is objectively bad. There are so many things that are stupid with that language that I don't even want to start listing them. People like it because of its potent standard library, its concurrency mechanisms, and because it's "simple", but it's only simple because it lacks a sound language design.
>>107639520and then everyone clapped
>>107639505>no companies use Godamn I guess I should tell my manager and the hundreds of other engineers in my department that we're all not actually using Go, thanks for letting me know anon.>>107639535I don't think you know what the word objectively means. I'm sorry that you don't enjoy it anon, nobody is making you use it, you don't have to.
>>107639534That never happens if you write good exception handlers at proper levels in your application. Also, that can happen in Golang too, but it's even worse there because you are never forced to handle errors since they're just another value. In Java, at least checked exceptions exist.
>>107639554>damn I guess I should tell my manager and the hundreds of other engineers in my department that we're all not actually using Go, thanks for letting me know anon.they all live inside your head so it should be pretty easy. Hurry up, you need to take your meds so they'll all go away!
>>107639554>I don't think you know what the word objectively means. I'm sorry that you don't enjoy it anon, nobody is making you use it, you don't have to.The word "objective" implies a context, of course. Golang is objectively a badly designed *language*, if one judges it by precision and strictness. It is a a badly designed language in the same sense that PHP is a badly designed language. The language has awful constructs and semantics, and it promotes bad patterns. It is objectively good in other areas, such as having a standard library that contains everything from TLS servers to JSON parsers. I don't consider that sufficient, however. It is essentially a language that you may considered good if you prioritize other things than sound language design, for example toolset.
>>107639668>The language has awful constructs and semantics, and it promotes bad patternsAccording to who, the universe? Did God tell you this? How can you "objectively" prove this statement? You're just listing your personal opinions and saying it's objective. Saying "Go has the ability to parse JSON out of the box" is an objective statement, saying "Go has bad semantics" is not objective at all. You are redefining "objective" to mean "based on the specific metrics I prefer."
