> It feels odd to want exact control over the error handling abstraction but want to use Rust's convenient IO abstraction. Performance either matters or it doesn't.
This doesn't make any sense. What are the performance costs of doing I/O in Rust using `std::io`? If there are none, why would I want to give it up? AFAIK, the only reason to give up `std::io` is if your platform isn't supported by `std`.
> it's possible that we should think of exceptions as just a failed experiment
Who said that? Why does one way have to be right? There are trade offs! I'm sure you can find plenty of articles on the Internet that discuss exceptions vs. values. There are plenty of reasonable arguments on both sides.
> This debate was settled
OK, that's enough. I won't waste any more of my time with someone who is so certain of themselves.
You seem to be using the fact that there are trade-offs as a justification for the specific trade offs you've made and using tone policing as a substitute for defending these trade-offs
If you can't acknowledge the presence of trade offs, then I don't see how I could justify specific trade offs.
Just because I want to engage in a productive conversation doesn't mean my entire argument boils down to tone policing. It is OK to stop talking to someone because they are too frustrating to talk to.
Where did I disagree with the existence of trade-offs? What I find invalid is the idea that all trade-offs are equally good. The Rust scheme has certain advantages and certain disadvantages. I believe that the advantages don't matter much and that the disadvantages are worse than other people think. The advantages and disadvantages of the conventional C++ and Java model are better for a general purpose systems language.
> Where did I disagree with the existence of trade-offs?
When you say stuff like this:
> This debate was settled
and this
> I do dismiss this advantage out of hand
In general, most of your comments on this topic make every possible negative point about Rust's error handling without ever taking care to balance it with the positive points. If we can't even come to a mutual understanding that there are some trade offs involved in this decision, then it's really hard to move on to balancing the trade offs. Especially when you say things like this:
> All you do with "try!" is annoy readers
> had its designers not jumped on the anti-exception bandwagon
> without properly considering the advantages of the exception model
> All of this because some people don't like exceptions
This is a consistent dismissal of both the trade offs involved and of the people that actually worked on this stuff. Do you actually believe Rust is the way it is because we just hopped on a bandwagon? If so, that's extraordinary bad faith.
I'm criticizing Rust's error handling strategy. I shouldn't have to defend it at the same time. To be clear: everything is a trade-off. I don't think it's fair to claim that I don't think trade-offs exist merely because I haven't enumerated the scant good sides of the specific trade-off Rust made
This doesn't make any sense. What are the performance costs of doing I/O in Rust using `std::io`? If there are none, why would I want to give it up? AFAIK, the only reason to give up `std::io` is if your platform isn't supported by `std`.
> it's possible that we should think of exceptions as just a failed experiment
Who said that? Why does one way have to be right? There are trade offs! I'm sure you can find plenty of articles on the Internet that discuss exceptions vs. values. There are plenty of reasonable arguments on both sides.
> This debate was settled
OK, that's enough. I won't waste any more of my time with someone who is so certain of themselves.