> 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.