Reading the examples I found myself thinking, “that looks like a really useful pattern, I should bookmark this so I can adopt it whenever I write code like that.”
The fact that I’m considering bookmarking a blog post about complex boilerplate that I would want to use 100% of the times when it’s applicable is a huge red flag and is exactly why people complain about Go.
It feels like you’re constantly fighting the language: having to add error handling boilerplate everywhere and having to pass contexts everywhere (more boilerplate). This is the intersection of those two annoyances so it feels especially annoying (particularly given the nuances/footguns the author describes).
They say the point is that Go forces you to handle errors but 99% of the time that means just returning the error after possibly wrapping it. After a decade of writing Go I still don’t have a good rule of thumb for when I should wrap an error with more info or return it as-is.
I hope someday they make another attempt at a Go 2.0.
The main problems seem to me to be boilerplate and error types being so simplistic (interface just has a method returning a string). Boilerplate definitely seems solvable and a proper error interface too. I tend to use my own error type where I want more info (as in networking errors) but wish Go had an interface with at least error codes that everyone used and was used in the stdlib.
My rule of thumb on annotation is default to no, and add it at the top level. You’ll soon realise if you need more.
How would you fix it if given the chance?
Depends if it can be handled lower (with a retry or default data for example), if it can be it won’t be passed all the way up.
Generally though I haven’t personally found it useful to always annotate at every point in the call chain. So my default is not to annotate and if err return err.
What I like about errors instead of exceptions is they are boring and predictable and in the call signature so I wouldn’t want to lose that.
The rule of thumb is to wrap always.
error:something happened:error:something happened
Error: failed processing order: account history load failure: getUser error: context deadline exeeded
Typically there is only one possible code path if you can identify both ends.
Do1:...Do10, which then DoX,DoY,DoZ and one of those last 3 failed.
Do you really need Do1 to Do10 to be annotated to know that DoY failed when called from Do1? I find:
Do1:DoZ failed for reason bar
Just as useful and a lot shorter than: Do1: failed:Do2:failed...Do9 failed:Do10:failed:DoZ failed for reason bar
It is effectively a stack trace stored in strings, why not just embed a proper stack trace to all your errors if that is what you want?
Your concern with having a stack trace of calls seems a hypothetical concern to me but perhaps we just work on different kinds of software. I think though you should allow that for some people annotating each error just isn't that useful, even if it is useful for you.
I am unable to imagine a case where an error string repeated itself. On a loop, an error could repeat, but those show as a numerical count value or as separate logs.
I need to start getting used to context with cancel cause - muscle memory hasn't changed yet.
Go's context ergonomics is kinda terrible and currently there's no way around it.
It’s ironic how context cancellation has the opposite problem as error handling.
With errors they force you to handle every error explicitly which results in people adding unnecessary contextual information: it can be tempting to keep adding layer upon layer of wrapping resulting in an unwieldy error string that’s practically a hand-rolled stacktrace.
With context cancellation OTOH you have to go out of your way to add contextual info at all, and even then it’s not as simple as just using the new machinery because as your piece demonstrates it doesn’t all work well together so you have to go even further out of your way and roll your own timeout-based cancellation. Absurd.
I quite enjoy C# and F# and while they are low boiler plate, you can really learn them in a week or two the way you can learn Go.
And even you don't know anything about Go, you can literally jump into the code base and understand and follow the flow with ease - which quite amazes me.
So unfortunately, every language has trade offs and Go is not an exception.
I can't say I enjoy Go as a language but I find it very, very useful.
And since many people are using LLMs for coding these days, the boiler plate is not as much an issue since it be automated away. And I rather read code generated in Go than some C++ cryptic code.
Just pass along two hidden variables for both in parameters and returns, and would anything really change that the compiler wouldn't be able to follow?
i.e. most functions return errors, so there should always be an implicit error return possible even if I don't use it. Let the compiler figure out if it needs to generate code for it.
And same story for contexts: why shouldn't a Go program be a giant context tree? If a branch genuinely doesn't ever use it, the compiler should be able to just knock the code out.
The same would apply to anytime you have Result types - ultimately its still just syntactic sugar over "if err then...".
What's far more common in real programs is that an error can occur somewhere where you do not have enough context to handle or resolve it, or you're unaware it can happen. In which case the concept of exceptions is much more valid: "if <bad thing here> what do I want to do?" usually only has a couple of places you care about the answer (i.e. "bad thing happened during business process, so start unwinding that process" and many more where the answer is either "crash" or "log it and move on to the next item".
The problems are that the signature of functions doesn’t say anything about what values it might throw, and that sometimes the control flow is obscured — an innocuous call throws.
Both of these are solvable.
My argument here would be, that all of this though doesn't need to be seen unless its relevant - it seems reasonable that the programmer should be able to write code for the happy path, implicitly understanding there's an error path they should be aware of because errors always happen (I mean, you can straight up run out of memory almost anywhere, for example).
They would rather not solve it, thinking that the "programmers will deal with it".
Now they claim it’s too late.
The contexts and errors communicate information in different directions. Errors let upstream function know what happened within the call, context lets downstream functions know what happened elsewhere in the system. As a consequence there isn't much point to cancel the context and return the error right away if there isn't anybody else listening to it.
Also, context can be chained by definition. If you need to be able to cancel the context with a cause or cancel it with a timeout, you can just make two context and use them.
Example that shows the approach as well as the specific issue raised by the post: https://go.dev/play/p/rpmqWJFQE05
Thanks for the post though! Made me think about contexts usage more
Is there any equivalent in major popular languages like Python, Java, or JS of this?
Example:
maybeVal <— timeout 1000000 myFunction
In Haskell, cancellability is the default and carries no syntax overhead.
This is one of the reasons why I think Haskell is currently the best language for writing IO programs.
(I also think there's some wonkiness with and barriers to understanding Python's implementation that I don't think plagues Go to quite the same extent.)
https://github.com/ggoodman/context provides nice helpers that brings the DX a bit closer to Go.
Also, a sibling poster mentioned ZIO/Scala which does the Structured Concurrency thing out of the box.
There's a stop_token in some Microsoft C++ library but it's not nearly as convenient to interrupt a blocking operation with it.
The code that justifies the special context handling:
if err := chargePayment(ctx, orderID); err != nil {
cancel(fmt.Errorf(
"order %s: payment failed: %w", orderID, err,
))
return err
}