You wrote this, about the potential for user error with a Go example, as a negative: > To Go's credit, it is idiomatically correct (and encouraged) to leverage

You wrote this, about the potential for user error with a Go example, as a negative: > To Go's credit, it is idiomatically correct (and encouraged) to leverage Go's multiple return mechanism to return a second "failure" value if there is a possibility that a function will fail. However, this mechanism can easily be ignored or misused A few paragraphs above you wrote this in defence of Rust's approach: > No matter the programming language, people can always write poorly-named functions. So for Go, user error isn't an acceptable defence, but it is for Haskell and Rust? I think you made a lot of valid points, but this one seemed contradictory, unless I've missed the point. Apologies if so!