I think they had a valid point that exceptions and their implicit error checks do make it hard to look at the program text and see the error-handling program flow.
However, for languages with exceptions, it makes me wonder if perhaps IDEs and other tools could take up the slack here. If I call a function that was declared to throw an exception, why not visually annotate that as a place where an error may bubble up from? The information is there in the definition, but it'd be very handy to see it at the call site.
Just assume that all methods do, or could potentially, or will in the future throw an exception and you'll have no problem looking at program and understanding the error handling flow.
There is a consistent focus on the site the error is generated but that's the least important piece of information for handling errors.
However, for languages with exceptions, it makes me wonder if perhaps IDEs and other tools could take up the slack here. If I call a function that was declared to throw an exception, why not visually annotate that as a place where an error may bubble up from? The information is there in the definition, but it'd be very handy to see it at the call site.