Ali Çehreli, el 7 de junio a las 14:41 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>
> >Go doesn't have exceptions, so scope(failure/success) makes no sense.
> >You can argue about if not having exceptions is good or bad (I don't
> >have a strong opinion about it, sometimes I feel exceptions are nice,
> >sometimes I think they are evil), though.
>
> Just to compare the two styles...
>
> Without exceptions, every step of the code must be checked explicitly:
>
> // C code:
> int foo()
> {
> int err = 0;
>
> // allocate resources
>
> err = bar();
> if (err) goto finally;
>
> err = zar();
> if (err) goto finally;
>
> err = car();
> if (err) goto finally;
>
> finally:
> // do cleanup
>
> return err;
> }
>
> (Ordinarily, the if(err) checks are hidden inside macros like
> check_error, check_error_null, etc.)
>
> With exceptions, the actual code emerges:
>
> // C++ or D code
> void foo()
> {
> // allocate resources
>
> bar();
> zar();
> car();
> }
You are right, but when I see the former code, I know exactly was it
going on, and when I see the later code I don't have a clue how errors
are handled, or if they are handled at all. And try adding the try/catch
statements, the code is even more verbose than the code without
exceptions.
Is a trade-off. When you don't handle the errors, exceptions might be
a win, but when you do handle them, I'm not so sure. And again, I'm not
saying I particularly like one more than the other, I don't have a
strong opinion =)
--
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Qué sabía Galileo de astronomía, Mendieta! Lo que pasa es que en este
país habla cualquiera.
-- Inodoro Pereyra
