Linked by fran on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 21:02 UTC
Permalink for comment 482191
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-17
Well, no.. surely the concept is similar as the following (Sorry, OS news seems to flatten the indentation in the preview, so probably the post too):
It's possible to use panic/recover as a fairly limited traditional exception handling system, but it's not nice to use and Go programmers won't expect it. Similarly you can return null to indicate errors in Java but Java programmers won't expect that either.
They are distinct concepts and Go treats them as such.
By making them distinct you make your error handling easier to reason about and more resilient to changes in other parts of the code base. Even Java's checked exceptions have a neat trick of hiding the source of an exception from the code that has to handle it.