Go Programming talk [OT]

[Leandro Lucarella]

Bane, el  8 de junio a las 14:42 me escribiste:
> > > Is a trade-off. When you don't handle the errors, exceptions might be
> > > a win, but when you do handle them, I'm not so sure. And again, I'm not
> > > saying I particularly like one more than the other, I don't have a
> > > strong opinion =)
> > > 
> > 	Of course, the problem is that you rarely see the former code. Most
> > of the time, people just write the second one with or without
> > exceptions and don't bother about error checking if there are no
> > exceptions. You are a lot more likely to get them to handle errors
> > properly with exceptions than without (particularly with D's scope
> > statements).
> 
> Being lazy as I am, exceptions are faster and easier to use than
> manual error checking. There will always be some unchecked return
> value, with exceptions it can't happen. In a way same as GC vs manual
> memory handling.
> 
> Each thread of program I make I always enclose in try catch, so
> everything is cought.

Yes, I agree that "safety" is the best argument in favour of exceptions
(as explicitness is the best argument in favour of no-exceptions). The
Python Zen put it this way:

Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.

That's what I like the most about exceptions. I think try/catch is
really ugly though. There has to be something better.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Que barbaridad, este país se va cada ves más pa' tras, más pa' tras...
	-- Sidharta Kiwi