Its not verbose to some of us. It is explicit in what it does, meaning I don't have to wonder if there's syntatic sugar hiding intent. Drastically more minimal than equivalent code in other languages.

▲

gf000 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Verbosity is an objective metric.

Code readability is another, correlating one, but this is more subjective. To me go scores pretty low here - code flow would be readable were it not for the huge amount of noise you get from error "handling" (it is mostly just syntactic ceremony, often failing to properly handle the error case, and people are desensitized to these blocks so code review are more likely to miss these).

For function signatures, they made it terser - in my subjective opinion - at the expense of readability. There were two very mainstream schools of thought with relation to type signature syntax, `type ident` and `ident : type`. Go opted for a third one that is unfamiliar to both bases, while not even having the benefits of the second syntax (e.g. easy type syntax, subjective but that : helps the eye "pattern match" these expressions).

▲

giancarlostoro 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Every time I hear complaints about error handling, I wonder if people have next to no try catch blocks or if they just do magic to hide that detail away in other languages? Because I still have to do error handling in other languages roughly the same? Am I missing something?

▲

gf000 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Exceptions travel up the stack on their own. Given that most error cases can't be handled immediately locally (otherwise it would be handled already and not return an error), but higher up (e.g. a web server deciding to return an error code) exceptions will save you a lot of boilerplate, you only have the throw at the source and the catch at the handler.

Meanwhile Go will have some boilerplate at every single level

Errors as values can be made ergonomic, there is the FP-heavy monadic solution with `do`, or just some macro like Rust. Go has none of these.

▲

thunky 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lots of non-go code out there on the Internet if you ever decide you want to take a look.

▲

politician 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You’re not missing anything. I’ve worked with many developers that are clueless about error handling; who treat it as a mostly optional side quest. It’s not surprising that folks sees the explicit error handling in Go as a grotesque interruption of the happy path.

	▲	jurgenburgen 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That’s a pretty defensive take. You don’t have to hate Go to agree that Rust’s `?` operator is much nicer when all you want to do is propagate the error.