That’s a welcome feature even though I don’t like the syntax. But Go could become the perfect language if they just fixed error handling and a couple small annoying quirks.

I've never seen a person who writes Go for more than a few weeks complain about the error handling. I certainly don't mind it myself. Is it really a problem people have or just somewhat of a meme at this point?

I like Go. It's useful for the things I need it for since it compiles fast into a single binary and has networking utilities in its standard library. I was used to Rust's error handling when I started, but I liked how simple Go's design was in comparison, so I stuck with it to get a proper feel for the language.

After a while, I tried using the Goland IDE, and its static analysis tool found a dozen places where I wasn't handling errors correctly: I was calling functions that return errors (such as `io.ReadCloser.Close` or `http.ResponseWriter.Write`) without assigning their results to variables, so any errors produced by them would simply be ignored. My code was compiler-error-free, go-vet warning free, and still, I was shipping buggy code.

A few months later, I try using the golangci-lint suite of linters, and again, it found even more places where I wasn't handling errors correctly: I was assigning to `err` and then, later, re-assigning to `err` without checking if there was an error in between. My code was still compiler-error-free, go-vet warning free, and now IDE-warning free — and I was still shipping buggy code.

I don't see how anyone can see this as anything other than a big ugly wart on the face of the language. It's not because it's repetitive, it's because it's fragile. Even with code I was looking at and editing regularly, it was far too easy to get wrong. I'm going to continue using Go because it still fits my purposes well, but I'm only running it on my servers, so any mistakes I make are on my head, rather than on anybody else's.

I also don't think Go's design is really amenable to things like the Option and Result types people are writing — yes, I would never have had these problems in Rust, but code written using them in Go is clunky and looks out-of-place and doesn't feel like it's the right thing to write. I wouldn't ever use the `Optional` type in the article. But it's definitely not a solution in search of a problem. There's a huge problem.

> I don't see how anyone can see this as anything other than a big ugly wart on the face of the language.

Would you be satisfied if the compiler forced you to check error returns?

I think the reason they don't do this is that it's a slight (albeit a very tiny one) against Go's philosophy of errors being values, just like any other. While the `error` type is standard and used throughout Go source code, it still just has a simple three-line definition[3] and is not treated as a special case anywhere else; there is nothing stopping you from returning your own error type if you wish. A third-party linter could simply check for the `error` type specifically, but the first-party tools should not, and there's nothing like Rust's `#[must_use]` attribute that could be used instead. I respect Go's philosophy, but I feel like pragmatism must win in this case.

[1]: https://github.com/kisielk/errcheck [2]: https://github.com/gordonklaus/ineffassign [3]: https://pkg.go.dev/builtin#error