>That feels like it really came out of nowhere, and after seeing so much code to implement what other languages have as a first-class feature (albeit with trade-offs that Rust clearly wanted to avoid), it comes across almost as a coping mechanism.

It's really not fair to compare these when most of the errors of one language are caught at compile time by the other.

It reminds me of that scene from silicon valley "Anything related to errors sounds like your area

https://youtu.be/oyVksFviJVE?si=NVq9xjd1uCnhZkPz&t=55

Can we not just agree that interpreted languages (save the Ackshually) like python and node need a more elaborate error handling system because they have more errors than compiled languages? It's not a holy war thing, I'm not on either side, in fact I use interpreted languages more than compiled languages, but it's just one of the very well-known trade-offs.

In the alternative, you would at least admit that error handling in an interpreted language is completely different than error handling in a compiled language.