Worst ideas/features in programming languages?
arco
qva6y4sqi at relay.firefox.com
Tue Nov 23 21:20:35 UTC 2021
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 11:37:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 14:23:15 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
> wrote:
>> On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 14:08:32 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>> I thought Rust error handling wasn't easy by default until
>>> they added the ? operator, at which point it became like
>>> exceptions but better.
>>
>> Looks like syntactical sugar to me, but I am no Rust expert.
>
> Correct, but then again, anything other than machine code is
> syntatical sugar. So is `throw new Exception("oh noes");`
>
>> It means you now loose context
>
> I don't see how.
>
>> and how do you log?
>
> The same way in pretty much any and all programs written that
> handles exceptions - some outer loop, possibly in the main
> function.
>
>>> To me that was always the issue with error handling without
>>> exceptions - how to easily just propagate it up (nearly
>>> always what one wants to do). I think they nailed it.
>>
>> For simple situations maybe, but it looks like a hack, as far
>> as I can tell from the docs.
>
> I disagree. To me, it has all the convenience of exceptions
> with none of the drawbacks.
Actually, Rust also has exceptions but like Go, it's ashamed to
admit it:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/panic/fn.catch_unwind.html
It's supposed to be used only for unrecoverable runtime errors
(panics in Rust parlance).
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list