> The error may just be passing through, coming from my own code or from a different library altogether.
Then you will have a stack trace to work with. Again, this discussion would be more meaningful if you provided some real world examples. Hypothetical situations that will never happen in the real world are kind of pointless. You don't have to invent reasons to justify not using Go, if that is your intent. Frankly, I couldn't care less what tools you use, and it seems like it is justifiably not the right tool for your problems to begin with.
> Vendoring is not primarily about forking and then changing the code. The main purpose of vendoring is freezing dependencies.
But you are quite literally maintaining a fork. In 99% of the cases there will be no need to modify the code, be it in vendor or in another repository. Freezing the dependency has always been the primary goal of both approaches. The only difference vendor introduced is that the code resides under the vendor tree of each individual application, instead of in a global namespace that allows you to share your pinned version with all of your applications. That's it.
Only if a stack trace was added in the original location and then passed on at each intermediate step. As stack traces are not automatically created in Go, nor customarily passed on, there is usually no stack trace available.
>Again, this discussion would be more meaningful if you provided some real world examples. Hypothetical situations that will never happen in the real world are kind of pointless. You don't have to invent reasons to justify not using Go, if that is your intent.
I have been a real world developer for 25 years, and I have explained to you the sort of real life situations in which I have used stack traces to diagnose errors, either originating in or bubbling up through third party code.
If you want to call me a liar, fine, but otherwise don't call it a hypothetical situation that will never occur if I'm telling you that I have run into countless such situations.
I have been using Go and I have defended it on many occasions. But this sort of obstinate reaction of denial and deflection to the most obvious difficulties caused by any of Go's design decisions is really starting to put me off big time.
>But you are quite literally maintaining a fork. In 99% of the cases there will be no need to modify the code
Inserting error handling code is a modification and keeping it up-to-date with new versions of the library is the problem I'm talking about. I think I have made that very clear before.
Then you will have a stack trace to work with. Again, this discussion would be more meaningful if you provided some real world examples. Hypothetical situations that will never happen in the real world are kind of pointless. You don't have to invent reasons to justify not using Go, if that is your intent. Frankly, I couldn't care less what tools you use, and it seems like it is justifiably not the right tool for your problems to begin with.
> Vendoring is not primarily about forking and then changing the code. The main purpose of vendoring is freezing dependencies.
But you are quite literally maintaining a fork. In 99% of the cases there will be no need to modify the code, be it in vendor or in another repository. Freezing the dependency has always been the primary goal of both approaches. The only difference vendor introduced is that the code resides under the vendor tree of each individual application, instead of in a global namespace that allows you to share your pinned version with all of your applications. That's it.