←back to thread

Hyrum's Law in Golang

(abenezer.org)
98 points thunderbong | 2 comments | 21 Nov 24 07:12 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hambes ◴[21 Nov 24 08:20 UTC] No.42202204[source]▶
Solution to the specifically mentioned problem: Don't use string-based errors, use sentinel errors [1].

More generally: Don't produce code where consumers of your API are the least bit inclined to rely on non-technical strings. Instead use first-level language constructs like predefined error values, types or even constants that contain the non-technical string so that API consumers can compare the return value againnst the constant instead of hard-coding the contained string themselves.

Hyrum's Law is definitely a thing, but its effects can be mitigated.

[1]: https://thomas-guettler.de/go/wrapping-and-sentinel-errors

replies(6): >>42202257 #>>42202260 #>>42202261 #>>42202464 #>>42202551 #>>42202608 #
adontz ◴[21 Nov 24 08:30 UTC] No.42202261[source]▶
Honestly, this is so much worse than "catch". It's what a "catch" would look like in "C".
replies(1): >>42202287 #
hambes ◴[21 Nov 24 08:35 UTC] No.42202287{3}[source]▶
It might look worse than catch, but it's much more predictable and less goto-y.
replies(1): >>42202393 #
1. guappa ◴[21 Nov 24 08:58 UTC] No.42202393{4}[source]▶
goto was only bad when used to save code and jump indiscriminately. To handle errors is no problem at all.
replies(1): >>42202435 #
2. froh ◴[21 Nov 24 09:07 UTC] No.42202435[source]▶
yes, yes, yes! see the Linux Kernel for plenty of such good and readable uses of go-to, considered useful: "on error, jump there in the cleanup sequence ..."