I assume you're talking about languages with exceptions when saying "other language just hide errors from the user." I think that's a gross over-simplification of exception-based error handling. I generally do prefer explicit, but there are plenty of cases where exceptions are clearly elegant and more understandable.
My preference is a language like Elixir where most methods have an error-code returning version and a ! version that might raise an exception. Then you (the programmer) can choose what you need. If you're writing a controller method that is for production important code, use explicit. If you're writing tests and just want to catch and handle any exception and log it, use exceptions. Or whatever makes the most sense in each situation.
I've never gotten the explicit argument. Java checked exceptions are also part of the function signature/interface and nothing prevents one from making a language where all exceptions are checked then just doing
I get at the end of the day it's all semantics, but personally I kinda like the error-specific syntax. If you want to do the normal return path, that's fine, but I prefer the semantics of Rust's Result type (EITHER a result OR an error may be set).
To each their own, it's not something I really worry about.
Yeah same, Go's explicit argument never resonated with me either. In Elixir it's similar to a Result type, being a tuple such as either `{:ok, return_val}` or `{:err, err_msg}`, which is perfect for using with `case` or `with` depending on your situation.
My preference is a language like Elixir where most methods have an error-code returning version and a ! version that might raise an exception. Then you (the programmer) can choose what you need. If you're writing a controller method that is for production important code, use explicit. If you're writing tests and just want to catch and handle any exception and log it, use exceptions. Or whatever makes the most sense in each situation.