I think you made an unfortunate reference to Chester. As cacomistles are chagrined from being asked if they're related to 'Chester'; an infamous cacomistle male actor who starred in X-rated Terri Smith films many many years back.

I suppose I meant a little of both, to be honest.

I'm sort of in-between. I see the need sometimes of descriptive tags and the use of the generic ones, and none at all. But I have been very guilty of using those ones you pointed out like 'purred', 'growled', etc, and have been very bad with tacking on those 'ly' adverbs when I should have been writing the emotions in other ways. It has been a frustrating journey in trying to retrain my thought process on this matter, but seeing well written examples such as yours gives me hope that it is possible.

My thoughts are mainly in regards to aesthetic and personal feelings I have when I regard the two.
Romanian dialogue feels a little detached from the rest of the paragraphs as it is boldly emphasized each time with a new paragraph and a long dash mark at the beginning of it, marking a reply. There is a lack of quotation marks, in fact, the only time when quotation marks are used is when references are quoted or when things I purposely pronounced wrong, and even then, we employ them as such ,, '' not " "
There is also no actual form of separation from the dialogue itself, and the narrator's instructions as you would have with quotation marks. The only way to distinguish the two is that in a dialogue, the character's reply start with an uppercase while the narrator's instructions start with a lowercase. Sometimes they are found both in the same sentence (and are not separated not even by a comma, exclamation or question mark) and they are separated with a ,
(I think the same manner is used in German?)

I personally feel that English literature is more... formal in its dialogue. Maybe it is the fact that I am not yet familiarized with its regionalisms and slang language entirely. Or maybe it is simply because it has a more narrowed down, to the point, structure, as a language itself. It may also be a cause of the way both languages' literature have evolved. The rural environment had been a prominent subject of interest in previous literary currents here.
There are also less interjections in the English language. At least, so I believe considering the ones I have stumbled upon.

And all in all, I guess it is the way both of them are constructed. I mean, I can tell you (most of the times... well, sometimes. I am always mindful of the might of exceptions) what language a dialogue is/was or what country of origin the author has just by reading it, regardless of the language it was translated because there are certain elements which betray it, as different languages, and different people from their respective countries have different things they relate to. Thus, you see different motifs, different writing styles, stylistics, metaphors, informal proverbs, and all in all, different manners in which something, dialogue or description is elaborated.

And yes, Romanian is a latin-based language.

All in all, I have to say, it is always entertaining to understand the differences between different languages and their literature. What fascinates me most is the universal trait of English literature (And previously French, and maybe German too?) and how it indirectly sets a standard for all others to follow.
This universal quality in English literature is also what attracted me to it and tempted me to engage in it rather than Romanian literature.