Hacker News Reader

Comment by julianeon | Hacker News Reader

I'm close in age to you but that was one part of the article that resonate w me.

I'm often writing little scripts for my computer or things that a dozen people will use, if I'm lucky. If the program 'crashes' it barely matters.

It feels like, in Rust, I have to carefully choose my data type and use the applicable methods (not always intuitive), whereas in Nim or Go, I can basically just slap something together and then have an error condition which is like 'if you die, just print that you died and quit.' And that pretty much meets my needs. The extra safety isn't actually protecting anything valuable, in my case.

View on HN

I mean "unwrap()" and "panic!() are right there for "blow up and don't care", if you're really just doing throwaway scripting that should be enough.

And the "?" operator is way more ergonomic for throwing actual errors up a level than all the boilerplate in Go.

The pattern matching with `match` `if let` and `let else` are pretty easy to use to unwrap Result and Option enums.

And then the "anyhow" or "thiserror" crates make it all more ergonomic.

The end result is something is much more readable than all the error handling in Go, while still being at least as safe if not more safe.

Plus you wind up playing with Monads without needing to know what the hell an endofunctor is.

And there's no null/nil, while Options have to be explicit and if you squint (because of the presbyopia) they look kinda like the nillable stuff in C# 8.0

Kind of an ironic reply - naming 10 Rust features and libraries vs. an `if` check in Go to argue that Rust has simpler ergonomics for throw-away code.

My response covered the gamut from throw away code up to error handling in professionally written code, with a diversion through "null" handling.

To reiterate, for throw away code (or tests) unwrap() and panic!() will work just fine.

> code up to error handling in professionally written code

Lol, if you knew how much python code runs the world without even checking for exceptions, or with a try/except/pass ... and the world keeps on spinning.

"professionally written code" made me chuckle

Yeah I'm done with the trolls here.

I never understood the pearl clutching going on when people hear that Rust has different constructs for handling errors and control flow and if/else stuff is kinda an antipattern.

Same kind of people that would hold dear GOTO statements in my opinion.

Well the responses here are just a little bit more conviction that I'm on the right path with Rust.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious

Reply on news.ycombinator.com