> Or people will simply elect to use unchecked exceptions

Go already has unchecked exceptions. It's called "panic".

Ok? How does that relate to the discussion? What point are you intending to make?

It completely invalidates your argument. Your argument is that an error-handling system as described would be undesirable because it would result in developers misusing unchecked exceptions. Go already has unchecked exceptions in the form of `panic`.

So either developers are already abusing it, in which case go's current error-handling approach is no better than the one proposed according to your metric. Or developers have access to it but aren't abusing it, in which case there's no reason to expect they'd abuse it in a system where doing it the right way is even easier than it is today.

In my experience, users already do experience stack traces as it's embarrassingly easy to accidentally operate on a nil pointer.

I'm not sure whose argument that is, but it's not mine.

You realize people can simply scroll up to verify that, in fact, that is the exact argument you're making, right?

You're confused. My only point was that checked exceptions are only good when they're used. Better luck next time.