Go Programming talk [OT]

[Pelle]

On 06/09/2010 01:04 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> 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.
>

Careful use of scope(exit) and simply avoiding catching exceptions works 
well for me. Except when you have to catch, of course. :)