Pros of go-multierror

• Allows combining multiple errors into a single error value
• Provides error formatting options for better readability
• Supports custom error types and interfaces

Cons of go-multierror

• Less widely adopted compared to errors
• May introduce additional complexity for simple error handling scenarios
• Limited stack trace functionality

Code Comparison

errors:

err := errors.New("error message")
wrappedErr := errors.Wrap(err, "additional context")

go-multierror:

var result error
result = multierror.Append(result, errors.New("error 1"))
result = multierror.Append(result, errors.New("error 2"))

Key Differences

1. Error aggregation: go-multierror focuses on combining multiple errors, while errors emphasizes error wrapping and context.
2. Stack traces: errors provides built-in stack trace support, which is not a primary feature in go-multierror.
3. Usage complexity: errors is generally simpler for basic error handling, while go-multierror offers more flexibility for complex error scenarios.

Use Cases

• Choose errors for:

  • Simple error wrapping and context addition
  • Projects requiring detailed stack traces
  • Widespread compatibility with other Go libraries

• Choose go-multierror for:

  • Scenarios involving multiple potential errors
  • Custom error formatting requirements
  • Projects already using other HashiCorp libraries

Pros of errorx

• Offers more advanced error handling features like error types, error traits, and error namespaces
• Provides better error formatting and printing capabilities
• Includes built-in support for error wrapping and unwrapping

Cons of errorx

• Has a steeper learning curve due to its more complex API
• May be considered overkill for simpler projects or applications
• Requires more code to set up and use effectively

Code Comparison

errorx:

err := errorx.DecorateMany("operation failed",
    errorx.NewType("custom_error"),
    errors.New("underlying error"))

errors:

err := errors.Wrap(errors.New("underlying error"), "operation failed")

Summary

errorx offers more advanced error handling features and better formatting capabilities compared to errors. However, it has a steeper learning curve and may be considered overkill for simpler projects. errors provides a simpler API and is easier to use, but lacks some of the more advanced features found in errorx. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and the level of error handling complexity required.

Pros of eris

• Supports error wrapping with additional context and stack traces
• Provides a more comprehensive set of error handling functions
• Offers better performance in some scenarios, especially when dealing with large error stacks

Cons of eris

• Slightly more complex API compared to pkg/errors
• May require more code changes when migrating from standard library errors

Code Comparison

eris:

err := eris.New("base error")
wrappedErr := eris.Wrap(err, "additional context")
fmt.Println(eris.ToString(wrappedErr, true))

pkg/errors:

err := errors.New("base error")
wrappedErr := errors.Wrap(err, "additional context")
fmt.Printf("%+v\n", wrappedErr)

Both libraries provide similar functionality for creating and wrapping errors. However, eris offers more advanced features for error handling and formatting, while pkg/errors focuses on simplicity and compatibility with the standard library.

eris is generally more feature-rich and performant, but may require a steeper learning curve. pkg/errors is simpler and more widely adopted, making it easier to integrate into existing projects. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and your preference for simplicity versus advanced features.