Why is this better than throwing errors or using Promise.resolve()?
I know it is inefficient because creating a new error with a stack trace each time is bad for performance. However, you can also throw errors which do not extend Error to avoid this. Destructuring the output and explicitly checking for errors every time seems to be quite the hassle.
Because the error/success is encoded in the type, you are forced to handle the error case. If you aren't also wrapping throwable functions in `try/catch` then you have a lot of unhandled error cases.
If you know that something truly isn't going to error then you can just force cast it as `foo as Success<T>`. That will still blow up at runtime if its not a `Success`.
Alternatively, you could introduce a monadic chaining that is able to pipe `Result<T>` objects through many functions then handle at the end.
I know it is inefficient because creating a new error with a stack trace each time is bad for performance. However, you can also throw errors which do not extend Error to avoid this. Destructuring the output and explicitly checking for errors every time seems to be quite the hassle.