I agree that Rust's approach is better. I'm questioning the claim that Go "forces you" to handle errors, since to my understanding with Go someone can just eschew that 3-line boilerplate, silently ignoring the error, and still use the result (which is bad).
Silently ignoring errors by leaving out some boilerplate doesn't really seem like an active/forced decision, or a selling point over the languages it disparages ("[...] hellscape doesn't make errors disappear, it just hides them"). Then that the correct path is the one of more resistance seems poor design, in my surface-level opinion.
It is a decision though, and one you have to consciously make for each and every occurrence. You can't just hope some catch block will eventually handle it...
I may be missing something, but I don't see how just forgetting to handle/propagate the error (and, say, causing data corruption by continuing with whatever empty/partial return value the function happens to give) would be a conscious decision.
Even when it is intentional, like writing some quick/dirty code and planning on handling errors properly later, I'd imagine it's difficult to grep for instances of unchecked errors in the way you can with `.unwrap()` - though tooling should help.
