@cairnrefinery The cost is higher because it doesn't work. People get used to mindlessly writing patterns that don't reduce the bugs.
-
-
Replying to @wycats
@cairnrefinery I like solutions like Rust's error-handling, especially with .unwrap(), try!, and the proposed suffix-?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cairnrefinery
@cairnrefinery not really, since "ignoring" the errors via unwrapping in Rust is the equivalent of 5 lines of Go boilerplate.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
@cairnrefinery iow, it's trivial in Rust to ignore the errors at first, and still get reasonable exiting behavior etc.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
@cairnrefinery "forcing you to think" in this case would be forcing you to use: match err { Ok(...) => ..., Err(...) => ... }1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats
@cairnrefinery people who believe in the "forces you to think" philosophy would thin that was a plausible answer worth considering. I do not2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cairnrefinery
@cairnrefinery I use "nudge" to describe this.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@cairnrefinery I'd say more like "nudging people to do the right thing" - http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/oscon2003/mgp00053.jpg …
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.