People who write exceptional code consider the possibility of error all the time: there's just no need to mark this constant background possibility with syntax

People who write exceptional code consider the possibility of error all the time: there's just no need to mark this constant background possibility with syntax in every possible spot. When exceptional code calls a function, the programmer is saying that the default error behavior --- unwind and propagate to the caller --- is the right thing. It's the right thing in the overwhelming majority of cases, and it's so common that we don't need special syntax to say so. It's as if you're saying there's no difference between using an exception and not "consider[ing] the possibility of [an] error occurring". The lack of special syntax for this default behavior is not the same thing as error sloppiness. Rust's "?" operator does the same damn thing, except that you need to type a character on your keyboard to say so. With respect to the standard error contract, "?" in Rust functions as an "I agree" button. And we all know that people's eyes glaze over when prompted with endless "I agree" buttons and they just click "yes". "?" in Rust is the "I consent" button on a cookie warning popup.