> I don't see how any good-faith analysis of Go errors as specified/intended by the language and its docs, nor Go error handling as it generally exists in practice, could lead someone to this conclusion.
Let me detail my claim.
Broadly speaking, in programming, there are three kinds of errors:
1. errors that you can do nothing about except crash;
2. errors that you can do nothing about except log;
3. errors that you can do something about (e.g. retry later, stop a different subsystem depending on the error, try something else, inform the user that they have entered a bad url, convert this into a detailed HTTP error, etc.)
Case 1 is served by `panic`. Case 2 is served by `errors.New` and `fmt.Errorf`. Case 3 is served by implementing `error` (a special interface) and `Unwrap` (not an interface at all), then using `errors.As`.
Case 3 is a bit verbose/clumsy (since `Unwrap` is not an interface, you cannot statically assert against it, so you need to write the interface yourself), but you can work with it. However, if you recall, Go did not ship with `Unwrap` or `errors.As`. For the first 8 years of the language, there was simply no way to do this. So the entire ecosystem (including the stdlib) learnt not to do it.
As a consequence, take a random library (including big parts of the stdlib) and you'll find exactly that. Functions that return with `errors.New`, `fmt.Errorf` or just pass `err`, without adding any ability to handle the error. Or sometimes functions that return a custom error (good) but don't document it (bad) or keep it private (bad).
Just as bad, from a (admittedly limited) sample of Go developers I've spoken to, many seem to consider that defining custom errors is black magic. Which I find quite sad, because it's a core part of designing an API.
In comparison, I find that `if err != nil` is not a problem. Repeated patterns in code are a minor annoyance for experienced developers and often a welcome landscape feature for juniors.
Again, you don't need to define a new error type in order to allow callers to do something about it. Almost all of the time, you just need to define an exported ErrFoo variable, and return it, either directly or annotated via e.g. `fmt.Errorf("annotation: %w", ErrFoo)`. Callers can detect ErrFoo via errors.Is and behave accordingly.
`err != nil` is very common, `errors.Is(err, ErrFoo)` is relatively uncommon, and `errors.As(err, &fooError)` is extraordinarily rare.
You're speaking from a position of ignorance of the language and its conventions.
Indeed, you can absolutely handle some cases with combinations of `errors.Is` and `fmt.Errorf` instead of implementing your own error.
The main problem is that, if you recall, `errors.Is` also appeared 8 years after Go 1.0, with the consequences I've mentioned above. Most of the Go code I've seen (including big parts of the standard library) doesn't document how one could handle a specific error. Which feeds back to my original claim that "errors are primarily meant to be logged and that you have to get out of your way to develop errors that can actually be handled".
On a more personal touch, as a language designer, I'm not a big fan of taking an entirely different path depending on the kind of information I want to attach to an error. Again, I can live with it. I even understand why it's designed like this. But it irks the minimalist in me :)
> You're speaking from a position of ignorance of the language and its conventions.
This is entirely possible.
I've only released a few applications and libraries in Go, after all. None of my reviewers (or linters) have seen anything wrong with how I handled errors, so I guess so do they? Which suggests that everybody writing Go in my org is in the same position of ignorance. Which... I guess brings me back to the previous points about error-fu being considered black magic by many Go developers?
One of the general difficulties with Go is that it's actually a much more subtle language than it appears (or is marketed as). That's not a problem per se. In fact, that's one of the reasons for which I consider that the design of Go is generally intellectually pleasing. But I find a strong disconnect between two forms of minimalism: the designer's zen minimalism of Go and the bruteforce minimalism of pretty much all the Go code I've seen around, including much of the stdlib, official tutorials and of course unofficial tutorials.
> Indeed, you can absolutely handle some cases with combinations of `errors.Is` and `fmt.Errorf` instead of implementing your own error.
Not "some cases" but "almost all cases". It's a categorical difference.
> Most of the Go code I've seen (including big parts of the standard library) doesn't document how one could handle a specific error. Which feeds back to my original claim that "errors are primarily meant to be logged and that you have to get out of your way to develop errors that can actually be handled".
First, most stdlib APIs that can fail in ways that are meaningfully interpret-able by callers, do document those failure modes. It's just that relatively few APIs meet these criteria. Of those that do, most are able to signal everything they need to signal using sentinel errors (ErrFoo values), and only a very small minority define and return bespoke error types.
But more importantly, if json.Marshal fails, that might be catastrophic for one caller, but totally not worth worrying about for another caller. Whether an error is fatal, or needs to be introspected and programmed against, or can just be logged and thereafter ignored -- this isn't something that the code yielding the error can know, it's a decision made by the caller.
> Not "some cases" but "almost all cases". It's a categorical difference.
Good point. But my point remains.
> First, most stdlib APIs that can fail in ways that are meaningfully interpret-able by callers, do document those failure modes. It's just that relatively few APIs meet these criteria. Of those that do, most are able to signal everything they need to signal using sentinel errors (ErrFoo values), and only a very small minority define and return bespoke error types.
>
> But more importantly, if json.Marshal fails, that might be catastrophic for one caller, but totally not worth worrying about for another caller. Whether an error is fatal, or needs to be introspected and programmed against, or can just be logged and thereafter ignored -- this isn't something that the code yielding the error can know, it's a decision made by the caller.
I may misunderstand what you write, but I have the feeling that you are contradicting yourself between these two paragraphs.
I absolutely agree that the code yielding the error cannot know (again, with the exception of panic, but I believe that we agree that this is not part of the scope of our conversation). Which in turn means that every function should document what kind of errors it may return, so that the decision is always delegated to client code. Not just the "relatively few APIs" that you mention in the previous paragraph.
Even `text.Marshal`, which is probably some of the most documented/specified piece of code in the stdlib, doesn't fully specify which errors it may return.
And, again, that's just the stdlib. Take a look at the ecosystem.
> I absolutely agree that the code yielding the error cannot know (again, with the exception of panic, but I believe that we agree that this is not part of the scope of our conversation). Which in turn means that every function should document what kind of errors it may return, so that the decision is always delegated to client code.
As long as the function returns an error at all, then "the decision [as to how to handle a failure] is always delegated to client [caller] code" -- by definition. The caller can always check if err != nil as a baseline boolean evaluation of whether or not the call failed, and act on that boolean condition. If err == nil, we're good; if err != nil, we failed.
What we're discussing here is how much more granularity beyond that baseline boolean condition should be expected from, and guaranteed by, APIs and their documentation. That's a subjective decision, and it's up to the API code/implementation to determine and offer as part of its API contract.
Concretely, callers definitely don't need "every function [to] document what kind of errors it may return" -- that level of detail is only necessary when it's, well, necessary.
Let me detail my claim.
Broadly speaking, in programming, there are three kinds of errors:
1. errors that you can do nothing about except crash;
2. errors that you can do nothing about except log;
3. errors that you can do something about (e.g. retry later, stop a different subsystem depending on the error, try something else, inform the user that they have entered a bad url, convert this into a detailed HTTP error, etc.)
Case 1 is served by `panic`. Case 2 is served by `errors.New` and `fmt.Errorf`. Case 3 is served by implementing `error` (a special interface) and `Unwrap` (not an interface at all), then using `errors.As`.
Case 3 is a bit verbose/clumsy (since `Unwrap` is not an interface, you cannot statically assert against it, so you need to write the interface yourself), but you can work with it. However, if you recall, Go did not ship with `Unwrap` or `errors.As`. For the first 8 years of the language, there was simply no way to do this. So the entire ecosystem (including the stdlib) learnt not to do it.
As a consequence, take a random library (including big parts of the stdlib) and you'll find exactly that. Functions that return with `errors.New`, `fmt.Errorf` or just pass `err`, without adding any ability to handle the error. Or sometimes functions that return a custom error (good) but don't document it (bad) or keep it private (bad).
Just as bad, from a (admittedly limited) sample of Go developers I've spoken to, many seem to consider that defining custom errors is black magic. Which I find quite sad, because it's a core part of designing an API.
In comparison, I find that `if err != nil` is not a problem. Repeated patterns in code are a minor annoyance for experienced developers and often a welcome landscape feature for juniors.