Code that is infallible and has no side effects. Problem solved!
Since posting about Rust error handling is all the rage right now, here's my take: Only write code that is infallible.
-
-
-
Yes, I recommend calling into Haskell as needed for maximum purity.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I’ve always wondered why more programmers don’t just do this.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If we just had perfectly reliable networks, we wouldn’t need partition-tolerant consensus protocols https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1245844764131385345?s=21 …https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1245844764131385345 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
if I were a rust programmer confused about which error handling formalism to use I would simply write code that never fails at runtime
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't know... Rust error handling is fine imo. Even writing Ok(()) seems fine for me
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
I think you are supposed to say "I would simply" in this meme
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sounds like you’re playing on easy mode
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not me, I only write exceptional code....
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.