Exceptions are invisible control flow. You have no guarantees about what piece of code will execute anywhere in your codebase. I agreed with you maybe 2-3 years ago but have since done a hard 180 in that opinion after seriously using a language with no exceptions. I'm too stupid to reason about exception control flow, just like I am too stupid to do manual memory management.

There are also huge differences between exception alternatives, and I definitely think more progress is possible. I also dislike how Go approaches exceptionless, but Rust does a far better job. Hare seems like it could have one of the best approaches (so far) but I haven't actually used it.

Erlang/Elixir/Gleam are also something I want to try out. Allowing things to just crash and restart is definitely a different perspective worth learning about.

Y'know what, I just took a look and I think I would like Rust-style error handling.

It reminded me about one thing that I dislike about exception handing in C#, that methods don't have to declare the exceptions that they throw, unlike Java.

And the thing I disliked about the Java way was declaring exceptions that would be panics in Rust.

I also like that ? Rust operator for propagating errors.

I've done some Erlang and I definitely like Erlang monitors.

Maybe the Rust way combined with monitors would be the ultimate in error handling :-)

What if there was syntax that was built into a language that required annotating exceptions functions that threw exceptions. That way at least you would know that an exception was possible to be thrown in a function and could handle it appropriately