1. Your examples are TypeScript. The "S" is capitalized. Details matter. So do languages and the toy languages they're built atop.

2. Oh, dear lord! Heaven forbid that glorified JavaScript coders should strain their delicate cognitive processing by giving code more than a glance.

3. You admit that your console logging example is "very simple", but you never really present a better one, e.g. one that attempts to recover from the initial error with a retry, etc.

4. You never utilize (or define) more specific exception or error types.

Embracing failure as an expected outcome makes sense, and is something everyone should consider, but simply returning success or failure ignores the point of catching runtime exceptions in the first place (see #3 above).

And in the end, you admit that it's not the try/catch that's the problem; it's the "misuse or overuse" (determined by whom or by what objective standard?) that is the real problem.

I get it. You don't like try/catch blocks, but this really boils down to personal preference.

If I see work being done outside a try/catch block in one of the tens of thousands of code reviews I've done, it's getting kicked back.