166
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by qaz@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

Don't say anyway, say anyhow

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 4 days ago

It is a nicer way I think. But other languages do allow for good exception handling. It's just there's not a clear cut sign that no-one has handled the exception yet. So often it doesn't get handled.

What I mean by that is. If I have a function that returns say a string. As a caller, you don't know whether that function is always going to return a string (it handled exceptions internally), or if it returns a string but might return an exception. So you need to try/catch (or whatever is the equivalent in that language). It's not clear to the caller.

Whereas with rust, if you're holding a value wrapped in a result, it means that any exception hasn't been handled yet. If you're not passing the value (still inside the result) back to a caller, tag you're it! :P

[-] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 9 points 4 days ago

I like the flexibility Rust offers with the result type. It makes the error handling part of the control flow rather than an afterthought.

this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
166 points (97.2% liked)

Programmer Humor

25485 readers
1811 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS