Nope! Exceptions are, in fact, rarely understood and used correctly by most programmers. Including loopz. And me. And the authors of approximately every nontrivially-exception-using piece of code I've had to work with. And presumably also of the code loopz has had to work with.
The difference is that some of us have the good sense to rarely use exceptions at all.
Golang also output stack traces and even supports panic() if one wants to have something similar to handling exceptions. The difference is that this is used for classes of errors that ideally are programmer error, and not for all kinds of business logic states. I'm not saying the Go Way is perfect either, but it's at least a small step acknowledging the difference, rather than defaulting to dumping random programmer errors on unsuspecting users.
Errorhandling is easier when improving design. The problem is this takes time, thinking and effort.
Go's approach is inferior to Java's in all ways.
That's pretty condescending.
The mechanism for exceptions has been around for more than 20 years, it is well understood by most programmers.
The problem is that error handling is hard.
Exceptions are an adequately sophisticated solution to that hard problem. Go's approach only encourages ignoring errors (since the compiler never enforces that you handle them) and boiler plate.