"You don't have the slightest idea what kind of rabbit holes this will lead into."
Instead of making assumptions about what I know or don't know about programming language theory and type systems, could you list these rabbit holes?
Java inspired languages like Kotlin, Scala and C# all considered checked exceptions and all decided to drop them and I've never heard users of any of these language express any wish to re-introduce them. I've used all three professionally and I have no idea what "rabbit holes" you're talking about?
In fact there isn't a single widely used language besides Java that feature checked exceptions. Arguably Eiffel had them but that's seriously stretching the definition of "widely used".
> In fact there isn't a single widely used language besides Java that feature checked exceptions.
Not in Java's form, but I'd argue Rust's Result type basically achieves the same effect but with less syntax. A function call can return an error variant, and the caller must handle the case (even if that's just propagating it up with `?`), as opposed to letting it silently flow up the call stack (which is more like a Rust panic).
And I'd argue that Rust's error handling is excellent. The programmer is always forced to acknowledge function calls which may produce an error, yet is also able to say "I don't care" without much syntactic overhead.
Instead of making assumptions about what I know or don't know about programming language theory and type systems, could you list these rabbit holes?
Java inspired languages like Kotlin, Scala and C# all considered checked exceptions and all decided to drop them and I've never heard users of any of these language express any wish to re-introduce them. I've used all three professionally and I have no idea what "rabbit holes" you're talking about?
In fact there isn't a single widely used language besides Java that feature checked exceptions. Arguably Eiffel had them but that's seriously stretching the definition of "widely used".