From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <2c48f76cc19c912eb71595a28defda34@mightycheese.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] same functions everywhere
From: "rob pike, esq." <rob@mightycheese.com>
In-Reply-To: <3EB1E0F1.6060908@null.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri,  2 May 2003 09:28:07 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9d3dfef2-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> (a) uniform, tested error handling instead of ad-hoc

only for certain kinds of errors. you still need to write explicit
code (perhaps using exceptions) for many kinds of errors.

> (b) ensures reasonable default when user neglects to
> deal with the possibility of failre

a weak premise and again, only for certain errors.

> (c) no need for explicit tests of function error
> returns

therefore subverting programming discipline.

> Basically, it's a way to impose order on chaos.

and replace it with a mysterious, hard to understand
mechanism with a tendency to overlay a program's
structure with confusing, noisy error-handling
details.

i'm not a fan of exceptions. good programming
can trump them every time; bad exception handling
can destroy a program.  they're an interesting idea
but i judge them a failure.

-rob