failure

> It's not like there's likely hidden segfaults or memory vulns waiting there… It's funny you mention that, because the now-deprecated 'failure' crate has such a memory-safety vulnerability: https://github.com/rust-lang-deprecated/failure/issues/336 Granted, consuming code is only vulnerable if they opt-in to implementing a provided trait method that most people should never ever need to implement. But I would still try to eliminate 'failure' from my dependency graph if possible (and I recently submitted PRs to two dependencies I was using to remove 'failure' from their dependencies).

fehler isn't deprecated, but _I_ did deprecate the similarly named https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/failure/ with withoutboat's blessing. failure proceeded fehler by several years.

Failure is really nice to use. Might suit some people. https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/failure

Tangent: It's proposed that Elixir has better error handling than Rust... but this doesn't sit well with me, and I know the Rust community is in flux here as well. I personally like not having exceptions. It's very easy to trace where an error is coming from when it's a value like anything else. Yea it might be a bit more typing... this is the conflict. Rust does have an issue with the boilerplate involved with writing error types, but there are already attempts at fixing this as a crate: https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/failure

For error handling, check out failure if you haven't already: https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/failure