The Go team has discussed syntactic sugar for error handling many times. They're not against it, they're just holding out for a proposal that checks a lot of boxes and makes everyone happy, which hasn't happened yet.
But that's never going to happen because there is a very vocal subpopulation (I think it is a minority, but don't know for sure, and it is hard to measure that kind of thing) that is opposed to any "syntactic sugar" and wants it to stay the way it is.
I they wanted error handling they would have thought for a bit then picked a good enough solution. "We only want 'X but perfect'" is the same as "we don't want X".
Comments
The Go team has discussed syntactic sugar for error handling many times. They're not against it, they're just holding out for a proposal that checks a lot of boxes and makes everyone happy, which hasn't happened yet.
But that's never going to happen because there is a very vocal subpopulation (I think it is a minority, but don't know for sure, and it is hard to measure that kind of thing) that is opposed to any "syntactic sugar" and wants it to stay the way it is.
I they wanted error handling they would have thought for a bit then picked a good enough solution. "We only want 'X but perfect'" is the same as "we don't want X".
Example: https://go.dev/blog/error-syntax
It's a settled matter at this point for the foreseeable future
https://go.dev/blog/error-syntax
tl;dr - proposals are no longer being considered