I guess then I have to ask, why would try() make that worse?
Because I can't stand Golang error handling. It's repetitive, it's error prone, and other language features interact with it so that when you make a mistake it can be as hard as a double free to track down where the erroneous default value was introduced.
On the other hand, using Rust, Ocaml, F# or Haskell I understand how my code composed and I can be confident I can just use an error handling strategy. The only complexities appear, as with everyone else, when we have asynchronous code.
So I don't mean to disagree with your feelings, but they're sure not mine and they're part of why I don't use Golang. I was excited about try() because it at least addressed the most tedious part.
Because I can't stand Golang error handling. It's repetitive, it's error prone, and other language features interact with it so that when you make a mistake it can be as hard as a double free to track down where the erroneous default value was introduced.
On the other hand, using Rust, Ocaml, F# or Haskell I understand how my code composed and I can be confident I can just use an error handling strategy. The only complexities appear, as with everyone else, when we have asynchronous code.
So I don't mean to disagree with your feelings, but they're sure not mine and they're part of why I don't use Golang. I was excited about try() because it at least addressed the most tedious part.