Well, if you don't have exceptions, stack unwinding, RAII, you've got to manually code the same sort of logic using repetitive code. Or you would have to change

Well, if you don't have exceptions, stack unwinding, RAII, you've got to manually code the same sort of logic using repetitive code. Or you would have to change your design to minimise the pain of hand-coding stack unwinding, most likely paying a price for that in form of damaging other aspects of design. In other words, NOT having exceptions, IMO, results in having to write a huge amount of code accomplishing a trivial task - aborting some unit of functionality upon unexpected error. "And not catch all the other errors" I think, in most cases after an unexpected error happens it doesn't make sense to continue the task and report more errors, most likely induced by the first error. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of cases when returning errors as values is the best fit and using the exceptions would be a disaster, but my point is that, IMO, the situation when errors abort tasks and are handled in more or less the same way is much more common.