Interesting to see Rust error handling flunk out in practice.
It may be that forcing handling at every call tends to makes code verbose, and devs insensitized to bad practice. And the diagnostic Rust provided seems pretty garbage.
There is bad practice here too -- config failure manifesting as request failure, lack of failing to safe, unsafe rollout, lack of observability.
Back to language design & error handling. My informed view is that robustness is best when only major reliability boundaries need to be coded.
This the "throw, don't catch" principle with the addition of catches on key reliability boundaries -- typically high-level interactions where you can meaningfully answer a failure.
For example, this system could have a total of three catch clauses "Error Loading Config" which fails to safe, "Error Handling Request" which answers 5xx, and "Socket Error" which closes the HTTP connection.
> It may be that forcing handling at every call tends to makes code verbose
Rust has a lot of helpers to make it less verbose, even that error they demonstrate could've been written in some form `...code()?` with `?` helper that would have propagated the error forwards.
However I do acknowledge that writing Error types is boring sometimes so people don't bother to change their error types and just unwrap. But even my dinghy little apps for my personal use I do simple serach `unwrap` and make sure I have as few as possible.
I don't understand how your takeaway is that this is a language flaw other than to assume that you have some underlying disdain for Rust. That's fine, but state it clearly please.
The end result would've been the exact same if they "handled" the error: a bunch of 500s. The language being used doesn't matter if an invariant in your system is broken.
It may be that forcing handling at every call tends to makes code verbose, and devs insensitized to bad practice. And the diagnostic Rust provided seems pretty garbage.
There is bad practice here too -- config failure manifesting as request failure, lack of failing to safe, unsafe rollout, lack of observability.
Back to language design & error handling. My informed view is that robustness is best when only major reliability boundaries need to be coded.
This the "throw, don't catch" principle with the addition of catches on key reliability boundaries -- typically high-level interactions where you can meaningfully answer a failure.
For example, this system could have a total of three catch clauses "Error Loading Config" which fails to safe, "Error Handling Request" which answers 5xx, and "Socket Error" which closes the HTTP connection.