Programmer Humor

Exactly

But then someone will have to deal with it somewhere, better just unwrap it under the carpet.

I will say this: for me, learning rust was 80% un-learning habits from other languages.

People tend to not like it when they have to change habits, especially if those took a long (and painful) time to acquire.

In this particular case, this is the same complaint Go faced with its form of explicit error handling. And Java, for that matter.

Honestly, Rust does a killer job of avoiding checked exceptions and verbose error hooks by way of the ? operator, and requiring all possible match branches to be accounted for. If you embrace errors fully, by using Result<> and custom Error types, your program gets a massive boost in robustness for not a lot of fuss. I recently learned that it gets even better if you embrace enum as a way to define error values, and make sure it implements useful traits like From and Display. With that, error handling code gets a lot more succinct, permitting one to more easily sift through different error values after a call (should you need to). All of that capability far exceeds any perception of clunkyness, IMO.

I think the problem is that many introductory examples use unwrap, so many beginner programmers don’t get exposed to alternatives like unwrap_or and the likes.

I’ll be honest, when I was learning to program in Java I mostly just wrapped errors in an empty try catch to shut them up, with no regard for actually handling them.

I assume most other learners do that too.

Can't resist pointing out how you should actually write the function in a "real" scenario (but still not handling errors properly), in case anyone wants to know.

If the list is guaranteed to have exactly two elements:

fn is_second_num_positive_exact(input: &str) -> bool {
    let (_, n) = input.split_once(',').unwrap();
    n.parse::<i32>().unwrap() > 0
}

If you want to test the last element:

fn is_last_num_positive(input: &str) -> bool {
    let n = input.split(',').next_back().unwrap();
    n.parse::<i32>().unwrap() > 0
}

If you want to test the 2nd (1-indexed) element:

fn is_second_num_positive(input: &str) -> bool {
    let n = input.split(',').nth(1).unwrap();
    n.parse::<i32>().unwrap() > 0
}