And right there is where you’re going to lose most people.
If it’s is trivial, why isn’t in the standard library? If everyone needs to do it, why not standardize? I love Go, but i have to agree with grandparent poster.
Getting a stack trace is available in the runtime/debug library.
Perhaps stack traces aren't in normal errors since a program can throw 1,000 errors per second in a perfectly functioning application and that could get expensive.
I have heard that performance is the reason but I'm not able to confirm that.
github.com/pkg/errors is fairly ubiquitous and includes stack traces.
> If everyone needs to do it, why not standardize
The only time I've needed to read the stack trace in go, is when there has been an unexpected panic. Otherwise my error messages are more than sufficient to find the root cause of the error. I only have to run my own code though, I imagine if I was debugging someone elses code the stacktrace would be invaluable.
Go has purposely tried to do a few things differently. Date format comes to mind, and lack of exceptions which I personally like.
Trivial does not mean generic. Just because error handling is easy doesn't mean I want the same handling as you do.
Error handling is generic by itself. This is at the heart of any existing application. It is fundamental part of the design process and later on contributes greatly to troubleshooting. Making this solid should be, IMHO, one of the most important and thought through part of any language. In Go it seems to be left at the developer's convenience. And even though you may say there is a huge debate on the subject, it always leads to nothing. Or almost nothing, like in this case. It's just disappointing.
If people don't agree then it by definition does not belong in the stdlib.
I guess I finished that sentence in a different way than I started it.
For example, no one likes gofmt (tabs, eww), but everyone likes code across packages looking the same. And so we use it.