[fizzbatter]

I don't know how, but frankly i'd love to eliminate all simple panics. Nil pointers and channels seem two big culprits, offhand.

Granted, i left out nil pointer/interface panics because it seems unrealistic given how difficult it was for Rust to get rid of nil pointers. I'm not sure Go 2.0 could do it and still be considered Go.

[masklinn]

> Granted, i left out nil pointer/interface panics because it seems unrealistic given how difficult it was for Rust to get rid of nil pointers.

That wasn't really a difficult part, it's just a basic application of generic enums.

Now Go doesn't have (userland) generics or enums, but they could have taken the same path as other languages (and the one Go is wont to take): special-case it. Which they probably can't anymore because of zero-valuing, you can't have a zero value for non-null pointers.

[jerf]

I agree; I want non-nillable types in Go. This despite the differences in Go that makes nil values more "valid" than they often are in other languages.

I still faintly hold out hope. Unlike many of the complaints about Go that would require fundamental restructuring, C# showed that actually can be retrofitted onto a language without breaking it.

[pcwalton]

> Unlike many of the complaints about Go that would require fundamental restructuring, C# showed that actually can be retrofitted onto a language without breaking it.

C# added nullable types. Not non-nullable types.

In Go, the concept of zero values is so fundamentally baked into the semantics that non-nil pointers can never really be added to it.

[stcredzero]

I'd just make my own uninitialized type in Go. In fact, I think I've done it. I'd guess you'd want to avoid the boilerplate.

[pcwalton]

> Granted, i left out nil pointer/interface panics because it seems unrealistic given how difficult it was for Rust to get rid of nil pointers.

That wasn't difficult at all.