I think &quot;blub&quot; is relative. I look at people who think that cluttering code with boilerplate for error handling, and even those who think that boilerplate is sufficient is sufficiently papered over using macros, have yet to understand why exceptions are interesting or (often) how to use them correctly (as many uses of exceptions that people like to poke at are entrenched wrongness, much like how many people who hate the entire idea of relational databases really just hate MySQL, its limitations, and the attitude of its ecosystem). I feel one of the reasons I have been as productive as I have been over the years is that I have spent a lot of time studying error handling and even now have a sort of &quot;theory of errors&quot; that I will sometimes draw out for people on a blackboard. From my perspective, Rust is currently &quot;unusable&quot;, though very compelling and will hopefully fix this problem. As much as I agree with other things it has built, and as much as I agree that my attempts to simulate those things in other languages have disappointing holes, after having spent a lot of time studying languages like Erlang and Haskell (and even as someone who teaches a class at a college on programming languages at the college level), not having exceptions or anything better than try! is a deal breaker for me, and while this person jokes about monads and how learning them might not be important, they would be well served learning why monads are interesting. One could even argue the entire section about error handling and how this developer is happy about how &quot;straightforward&quot; Rust is in comparison to monads is the &quot;blub&quot; issue rearing its head, but between Rust and Haskell. (The use of the word &quot;straightforward&quot; is always particularly concerning to me, as it is the general argument one uses for programming in C or Java instead of anything that hides intent.)