You wrote this, about the potential for user error with a Go example, as a negative:

> To Go's credit, it is idiomatically correct (and encouraged) to leverage Go's multiple return mechanism to return a second "failure" value if there is a possibility that a function will fail. However, this mechanism can easily be ignored or misused

A few paragraphs above you wrote this in defence of Rust's approach:

> No matter the programming language, people can always write poorly-named functions.

So for Go, user error isn't an acceptable defence, but it is for Haskell and Rust?

I think you made a lot of valid points, but this one seemed contradictory, unless I've missed the point. Apologies if so!