Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hollyhoppet wrote

Reply to comment by twovests in I truly believe that Go is the worst popular modern language. by flabberghaster

You have to explicitly pass and handle your own error stack

this is gross lol

5

twovests wrote

to be clear i have not done a lot of go and what i have done was mostly a year ago

this is because i did not like go

2

flabberghaster OP wrote

I think? You can just assign it to _ and it will be ignored, if you want. Like

val, _ := something()
2

twovests wrote

ya, what i mean is, i think you gotta:

  1. write val, err := something() and use err to build your own stack trace
  2. make sure something() returns that err in the first place, if you wrote it

otherwise you don't get a stacktrace when something() fails.

i'm not confident about this, because i can't imagine Go reaching any acclaim while being so hilariously designed. but "Errors are values" so maybe we are right and go is bad

2

flabberghaster OP wrote

Oh, yeah. That's true. I have so much problems debugging go code because every crash is like, "the program the an unhandled error at like 123" and then you look at like 123 and it's like

if err := some_call() {
    panic("some_call failed!");
}

You just hid the stack trace that tells me what went wrong!!!

2

twovests wrote

I much prefer Every Other Language, where you get a stack trace that runs into the library code!

something like

some_call() failed at call another_call(x, y, z)

another_call(x,y,z) failed at internal_library(x[123])

internal_library.c failed on line 1025: index 123 is out of bounds for array x
2

flabberghaster OP wrote

You can wrap your errors though, it's not hard to do. Use fmt.Errorf() but you have to actually do it. And people tend not to where I work.

2

twovests wrote

Same situation! It's a bit more boilerplate on everything I write, but the main problem is not everyone does it.

Thankfully, now nobody writes Go at my work (^:

Unthankfully, we're language-shy because of it, lol

2