For a second I thought you were advocating for something of those, and I had a rant primed up.

Yes. Defensively handle all the failure modes you know how to handle, but nothing else. If you're writing a service daemon and the user passes in a config filename that doesn't exist, crash and say why. Don't try to guess, or offer up a default config, or otherwise try to paper over the idea that the user asked you to do something impossible. Pretty much anything you try other than just crashing is guaranteed to be wrong.

And for the love of Knuth, don't freaking clamp to zero or otherwise convert inputs into semantically different value than specified. (Like, it's fine to load a string representation of a float into an IEEE754 datatype if you're not working with money or other exact values. But don't parse 256 as 255 and call it good enough. It isn't.)

There's probably a "Pay it forwards" lesson from Rust's diagnostics too.

So much end user software tries to be "friendly" by just saying "An error occurred" regardless of what's wrong or whether you can do anything about it. Rust does better and it's a reminder that you can too.