> But you need pattern matching and other techniques...
The go way to do this would be:
switch {
case errors.Is(err, outOfDiskSpaceError):
// handle out of disk space error
case errors.Is(err, lackOfPermissionsError):
// handle lack of permissions
...
default:
// do the equivalent of the `_` case in a scala match statement or `t` in a lisp cond
}
Which is roughly as readable as scala/rust's match statements. Moreso if someone tried to get cute in scala and bind both the object as a whole and parts of it at the same time ( something like `case x @ Type(_, _, y, _)` ) or when people get real cute with the unapply method.
I mean, I like scala. It's fun. But I would never say it's more readable than go. I've been left to support things that happen when a team of average intelligence devs get a hold of it.
You're also really comparing an MIT and New Jersey style solution here, and judging them both on MIT merits. And I don't think that's exactly a fair argument.
The go way to do this would be:
Which is roughly as readable as scala/rust's match statements. Moreso if someone tried to get cute in scala and bind both the object as a whole and parts of it at the same time ( something like `case x @ Type(_, _, y, _)` ) or when people get real cute with the unapply method.I mean, I like scala. It's fun. But I would never say it's more readable than go. I've been left to support things that happen when a team of average intelligence devs get a hold of it.
You're also really comparing an MIT and New Jersey style solution here, and judging them both on MIT merits. And I don't think that's exactly a fair argument.