How is that better for developing a sense of paranoia around error states?
"Throw it at the wall and see what sticks" does not exactly lead to "extreme paranoia managing errors".
Additionally, of course anything can be done with enough time and effort but the costs add up when you are doing things manually rather than letting the compiler handle it. Compiler has had many person-years of effort spent in ensuring the output is correct, can we do the same for all the code we write?
For example, if I'm coding in C# it's easier for me to understand the impact of passing our resources that need to be disposed and good patterns to handle that after Rust has made me lose hairs on this concept.
You can tell people to be careful drivers all you want, but what really saves lives is airbags, crumple zones, and seatbelts.
> You can tell people to be careful drivers all you want, but what really saves lives is airbags, crumple zones, and seatbelts.
Could just be that the frequency of repeated accidents (and the related injuries) is too low to instill paranoia. The analogy is not the same as with programming in C, where the frequency is "multiple times a day", and not "less than once in a lifetime.
IOW, I feel that
> The fact that so many of the issues still persist suggests it [extreme paranoia] does not.
is inaccurate.