[grey-area]

So what would you do then?

If you don't like it, don't present pale echoes of criticisms we've already seen (not listening to 30 years of language design...), tell us what you would do instead, because the answer is non-obvious and there is no one 'right thing'.

[alexbanks]

What a ridiculous way to think about language design. The users of a language are best suited to define what parts of the language do not feel good to them - why are they expected to come up with solutions for the language designers? In your mind, are you only allowed to present criticism if you're also able to define solutions? Doesn't that limit the people that are allowed to criticize to the language designers themselves? That seems like an excellent way to get tools nobody wanted, no?

[grey-area]

Language design has nothing to do with discussions on HN (at least I hope not!).

It’s very easy and not very useful to come up with vague criticisms based on generalities, it’s much harder, but infinitely more fertile and interesting, to come up with a coherent thesis as to what should be done. The OP posited a right way, I’m curious as to which of the right ways they mean.

[RHSeeger]

I would say that design has a lot to do with discussion.

[grey-area]

There are different kinds of discussion, I don't think a discussion site is the right forum for design, do you?

Also discussion requires some content, not empty complaints without any backup. For example propose a different mechanism for reporting errors, like optional types or exceptions (both have potential problems). The OP would be more interesting if it actually tried to engage with the problem.