diff --git a/assets/images/2025-02-03-rust-first-impressions-error-handling/Gemini_Generated_Image_61aptz61aptz61ap.jpeg b/assets/images/2025-02-03-rust-first-impressions-error-handling/Gemini_Generated_Image_61aptz61aptz61ap.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e21cc29
Binary files /dev/null and b/assets/images/2025-02-03-rust-first-impressions-error-handling/Gemini_Generated_Image_61aptz61aptz61ap.jpeg differ
diff --git a/en/_posts/2025-02-03-rust-first-impressions-error-handling.md b/en/_posts/2025-02-03-rust-first-impressions-error-handling.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7e51713
--- /dev/null
+++ b/en/_posts/2025-02-03-rust-first-impressions-error-handling.md
@@ -0,0 +1,285 @@
+---
+layout: post
+title: "Rust First Impressions: Error Handling"
+date: 2025-02-03 00:00:00 +0000
+permalink: /en/rust-first-impressions-error-handling
+blog: en
+tags: tech programming rust rust-first-impressions
+render_with_liquid: false
+image: /assets/images/2025-02-03-rust-first-impressions-error-handling/Gemini_Generated_Image_61aptz61aptz61ap.jpeg
+---
+
+![An cartoon image of a crab that was alerted to some danger, showing an exclamation point above the crab's head](/assets/images/2025-02-03-rust-first-impressions-error-handling/Gemini_Generated_Image_61aptz61aptz61ap.jpeg){:style="width: 50%; display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto"}
+
+For the 2024 edition of Advent of Code I decided to finally give Rust a try and
+implement the puzzle solutions in the language. Rust has been pretty stable for
+more than a decade so I suppose learning it was far past due.
+
+I want to write some of my first impressions of the language as much to help
+sharpen and collect my thoughts as much as to share them with others. I’ll also
+be coming at this mostly from the perspective of a Go programmer since that’s
+probably my strongest language at the moment.
+
+Given that I was mostly focusing on Advent of Code puzzles I haven’t really had
+a chance to dive into the many popular crates that are out there, so I’ll
+mostly be talking about core language features. Three big ones jump out as
+being different enough that they would trip up new learners, myself included.
+Those three are error handling, the type inference engine, and the ownership &
+borrowing model. I will be writing about each of these in separate blog posts.
+In this post I’ll be focusing on error handling.
+
+## The Result type
+
+Rust returns errors as part of the [Result
+type](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/result/). Results are basically tuples but
+include a number of methods like `expect`, `unwrap`, `unwrap_or`,
+`unwrap_or_default`, and `unwrap_or_else` that simplify error handling. Each
+of these methods are basically an `if` statement that does different things in
+the case that an error is encountered. This heavily favors the style in Rust of
+chaining logic together and using closures which can easily get unwieldy.
+
+```rust
+// Why this?
+if result.is_err_and(|x| x.kind() == ErrorKind::NotFound) { /* … */ }
+
+// … when you could do this? (unfortunately, combining the ifs is unstable(?))
+if let Err(e) = result {
+  if e.kind() == ErrorKind::NotFound { /* … */ }
+}
+```
+
+In Go errors are generally returned in a simple tuple and checked with `if`
+statements. This removes the need for wrapper type and makes the logic easier
+to follow. Go’s `fmt` package also includes errors that can be wrapped in other
+errors allowing error types to be retained at each stack level.
+
+```go
+x, err := SomeFunc()
+if err != nil && errors.Is(err, fs.IsNotExist) {
+    // …
+}
+```
+
+One thing that is nice about the Result type is that it is annotated with the
+`#[must_use]` attribute which allows the compiler to issue a warning if the
+error isn’t handled. In Go, popular linters will make this check but it’s nice
+that it’s built into the compiler for Rust.
+
+## Errors are values
+
+Rust’s error handling is probably the easiest to grasp of the three features I
+mention here. Rust joins Go in taking the approach that [errors are
+values](https://go.dev/blog/errors-are-values). Rust doesn’t have exceptions as
+they have gone out of favor due to their tendency to cause jumps to unexpected
+areas of the codebase. Instead of exceptions, recoverable errors are returned
+as return values to be handled by the caller. Unrecoverable errors will
+generally be represented by the program panicking. Both Rust and Go are similar
+in that manner.
+
+I am personally sympathetic to this given the general lack of ways to help
+programmers handle exceptions in other languages. For languages like
+JavaScript, Ruby, and Python functions are not annotated with the exceptions
+they throw so it’s very hard to know what errors could occur when calling it.
+Some languages like Java have checked exceptions. Java also makes the
+distinction between “exceptions”, which are recoverable errors, and “errors”
+which are (generally) not.
+
+While widely used by languages, exceptions can cause programs to jump to
+unexpected areas of the codebase and it can be very hard to follow what code
+will be executed next after an exception is thrown. Even in the best case
+scenario you need to follow the function’s call chain all the way back to where
+the exception is caught, and even then it could be re-thrown!
+
+Treating errors as values handles these issues by returning errors from
+function calls. It also allows for more creative handling of errors by
+recording them or composing them with other user-defined types. In Go, errors
+can be composed to great effect to [simplify repetitive error
+handling](https://go.dev/blog/error-handling-and-go).
+
+```go
+type errWriter struct {
+    w   io.Writer
+    err error
+}
+
+func (ew *errWriter) write(buf []byte) {
+    if ew.err != nil {
+        return
+    }
+    _, ew.err = ew.w.Write(buf)
+}
+
+ew := &errWriter{w: fd}
+ew.write(p0[a:b])
+ew.write(p1[c:d])
+ew.write(p2[e:f])
+// and so on
+if ew.err != nil {
+    return ew.err
+}
+```
+
+This doesn’t seem to be done as much in Rust as it has opted to have the
+built-in question mark for [repetitive error
+propagation](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch09-02-recoverable-errors-with-result.html#a-shortcut-for-propagating-errors-the--operator).
+So there isn’t as much opportunity to make use of the idea that errors are
+values quite as much.
+
+```rust
+w.write(buf[a:b])?;
+w.write(buf[c:d])?;
+w.write(buf[e:f])?;
+```
+
+## The Error trait
+
+In Rust errors returned in a `Result` must implement the [Error
+trait](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/error/trait.Error.html). Rust allows you
+to create user-defined error types but the `Error` trait is rather verbose to
+implement. Here is probably the shortest way to create a custom error using the
+standard library.
+
+```rust
+use std::error::Error;
+use std::fmt;
+
+#[derive(Debug)]
+struct SomeError;
+
+impl fmt::Display for SomeError {
+    fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> fmt::Result {
+        write!(f, "Some error happened")
+    }
+}
+
+impl Error for SomeError {}
+```
+
+Go’s `error` interface is rather simple by comparison and only requires you to
+implement the `Error` method which returns the error as a string. There are
+some Rust crates like [anyhow](https://docs.rs/anyhow/latest/anyhow/) and
+[thiserror](https://docs.rs/thiserror/latest/thiserror/) to make creating error
+types easier but right now I find them to be a bit overkill.
+
+```go
+type SomeError struct {}
+
+func (e SomeError) Error() string {
+return "Some error happened"
+}
+```
+
+## Questions but not many answers
+
+I mentioned that treating errors as values can create repetitive error handling
+code. Rust has the built-in question mark (?) which inserts logic to the effect
+of:
+
+```rust
+// This is equivalent
+SomeFunc()?;
+
+// … to this.
+let result = SomeFunc();
+if let Err(e) = result {
+    return Err(e);
+}
+```
+
+This is nice because it can make the code much more concise. However, it can
+also make it harder to follow where the errors are coming from. Rust’s use of
+question marks and long method chains can also make it hard to know what code
+is covered by tests and if all error conditions are being tested since coverage
+tools often look at code lines.
+
+```rust
+// Are all of these errors being tested?
+SomeFunc()?.parse::<usize>()?.checked_add_signed(i).ok_or_else(|| 0)?;
+```
+
+Propagating errors in Rust is a bit tricky and it took me a while to figure out
+how to do it right. To return an `Error` from a function that may return any
+number of error types, it needs to be returned as a `Box&lt;dyn Error>`. The
+aforementioned `anyhow` and `thiserror` libraries have more features and are
+widely used. Error types are also returned directly and pre-defined as an
+`enum` and/or converted between error types with the [`From
+trait`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/convert/trait.From.html)
+
+```rust
+#[derive(Debug)]
+enum SomeError {
+    ParseError(std::num::ParseIntError),
+    IoError(std::io::Error),
+}
+
+impl From<std::num::ParseIntError> for SomeError {
+    fn from(err: std::num::ParseIntError) -> Self {
+        NumFromFileErr::ParseError(err)
+    }
+}
+
+impl From<std::io::Error> for NumFromFileErr {
+    fn from(err: std::io::Error) -> Self {
+        NumFromFileErr::IoError(err)
+    }
+}
+```
+
+Now we can define a function that returns the `SomeError` error type.
+
+```rust
+fn some_func() -> Result<(), SomeError> {
+    // We can return std::num::ParseIntError and std::io::Error here and it will be converted to SomeError.
+}
+```
+
+Though, perhaps providing more specificity with regard to errors, this seems to
+me to be just needlessly complicated. I need to implement conversions between
+error types and enumerate every error type that could possibly be returned from
+the function. Go just allows us to return errors by wrapping them and test the
+error types later.
+
+```go
+func SomeFunc() error {
+    // This could be strconv.NumError or io.EOF
+    err := SomeOtherFunc()
+
+    // Using SomeError declared above. Both the error returned by SomeOtherFunc
+    // and the SomeError are wrapped.
+    return fmt.Errorf(“%w: %w”, SomeError{}, err)
+}
+```
+
+Now, most of the time we don’t need to care about the underlying error types
+but if we did we can use the `errors` package. No need to convert between
+types. Go’s wrapped errors also allow us to return an error that is multiple
+error types (in this case `SomeError` and `io.EOF`) providing for greater
+flexibility in how the errors are handled.
+
+```go
+var numErr *strconv.NumError
+if errors.Is(err, io.EOF) {
+    // Matches io.EOF but not strconv.NumError
+}
+
+var someErr *SomeError
+if errors.As(err, &SomeError) {
+    // Matches all SomeErrors
+}
+```
+
+## Final Thoughts
+
+While I wish error handling in Rust was as simple as Go, I appreciate the lack
+of exceptions and I think the `Result` type fits well into Rust code. However,
+I’m more of a fan of Go’s simpler approach to errors and error handling. The
+more code I’ve written the more I appreciate having fewer language features and
+syntactic sugar, preferring code that is optimized for reading.
+
+Go has some esoteric issues like using `errors.Is` for static error values vs.
+using `errors.As` for matching against an instance of an error type but this
+complexity pales in comparison to Rust’s error handling. A Rust-like question
+mark [proposal](https://github.com/golang/go/issues/71203), and [continuing
+discussion](https://github.com/golang/go/discussions/71460), was introduced to
+reduce repetition but I see introducing features like this as mostly a
+misadventure.