Yes, I've never quite understood the "But with exceptions it's hard to debug why the error occurred after the fact, its better to be explicit in advance" - The stack trace points exactly to the line. And usually, with the error message and context, its all I need. Maybe I'm missing something that someone can inform me.

Many "developers" think print("OOOPS") is a good way to debug - so I guess it's an education problem.

> It is amazing to me how many developers do not understand that having a stack trace at the exact instant of a bad thing is like having undetectable wall hacks in a competitive CS:GO match.

Who doesn't understand that? If you aren't using exceptions you are using wrapping instead, and said wrapping is merely an alternative representation of what is ultimately the very same thing. This idea isn't lost on anyone, even if they don't use the call stack explicitly.

The benefit of wrapping over exceptions[1] is that each layer of the stack gains additional metadata to provide context around the whole execution. The tradeoff is that you need code at each layer in the stack to assign the metadata instead of being able to prepare the data structure all in one place at the point of instantiation.

[1] Technically you could wrap exceptions in exceptions, of course. This binary statement isn't quite right, but as exceptions have proven to be useless if you find yourself ending up here, with two stacks offering the same information, we will assume for the sake of discussion that the division is binary.