llama 3.3 70b q4_k_m - tested perplexity on code with explicit vs implicit error handling

been testing coherence patterns on different code structures and found something interesting. explicit error handling (rust Result<T,E>, haskell Either, go multiple returns) holds coherence significantly longer than implicit error handling (python exceptions, javascript try/catch). tested on llama 3.3 70b q4_k_m, llama.cpp commit b2701, sampler config temp 0.7 / top_p 0.9 / top_k 40 rust with explicit Result handling: coherence to 18.9k tokens python with try/except blocks: coherence breaks at 16.7k tokens token counts were normalized - same logical program structure in both languages, adjusted for syntax overhead. the 2.2k token gap is way larger than I expected. my theory: explicit error handling creates clearer control flow paths in the attention mechanism, while exception-based error handling introduces implicit jumps that the model has to track across longer context. haven't tested on other models yet to see if this generalizes