> they may propagate automatically from any point in code, potentially breaking atomicity invariants and preventing forward progress

A failure can propagate in the same circumstances in a Rust program. First, Rust has panics, which are exceptions. Second, if any function you call returns Result, and if propagate any error to your caller with ?, you have the same from-anywhere control flow you're complaining about above.

Programmers who can't maintain invariants in exceptional code can't maintain them at all.

> try…catch is a non-expression statement,

That's a language design choice. Some languages, like Common Lisp, have a catch that's also an expression. So what?

> they are an implicit side-channel treated in the type system like an afterthought an

Non-specific criticism. If your complaint is that exceptions don't appear in function signatures, you can design a language in which they do. The mechanism is called "checked exceptions"

Amazing to me that the same people will laud Result because it lifts errors into signatures in Rust but hate checked exceptions because they lift errors into signatures in Java.

Besides, in the real world, junior Rust programmers (and some senior ones who should be ashamed of themselves) just .unwrap().unwrap().unwrap(). I can abort on error in C too, LOL.

> A failure can propagate in the same circumstances in a Rust program.

What do you consider failure? A result or a panic? Those are worlds apart.

> First, Rust has panics, which are exceptions.

That's not how exceptions work in Java. Exceptions are meant to be caught (albeit rarely). Panics are meant to crash your program. They represent a violation of invariants that uphold the Safety checks.

Only in extreme cases (iirc Linux kernel maintainers) was there a push to be able to either "catch panics" or offer a fallible version of many Rust operations.

The Rust version of Java Exceptions are Results. And they are "checked" by default. That said, Exceptions in Java are huge, require gathering info and slow as molases compared to returning a value (granted you can do some smelly things like raising static exceptions)[1].

[1] https://shipilev.net/blog/2014/exceptional-performance/

> Non-specific criticism. If your complaint is that exceptions don't appear in function signatures, you can design a language in which they do. The mechanism is called "checked exceptions"

And everyone hates checked exceptions. Because rather than having a nice pipe that encapsulates errors like Result, you list every minute Exception possible, which, if we followed the mantra of "every exception is a checked exception" would make, for example, Java signatures into an epic rivaling Iliad.

> Besides, in the real world, junior Rust programmers (and some senior ones who should be ashamed of themselves) just .unwrap().unwrap().unwrap().

If this is a game who can write worse code, you'll never find Java wanting. As a senior Java dev, I've seen things... Drinking helps, but the horrors remain.