What miscommunication are you speaking of? "Exceptions" was understood to mean "exception handlers" from the beginning. I even expressed that understanding earlier. While you've taken us down some interesting tangents, for whatever strange reason you found it relevant, the core discussion about exception handling has also remained intact.

But you seem to want to avoid talking about it? Let's try one more time: What is it about dead-simple search and replace, without adding any other new features or technical concepts, that turns what is "not exceptions" into something that is "exceptions"? Because I don't understand the difference that makes.

All of the languages are turing complete; the fact that you can make them do the same things with relatively simple transforms isn't actually surprising, it is in fact a natural consequence. Of course, you can do the same thing with nearly any stack unwinding primitive as long as it's general enough like panic/recover.

Language decisions scoped try/catch are not incidental details.