Re: exceptions: checked or unchecked?
- From: Arne Vajhøj <arne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:00:41 -0400
marlow.andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Joshua Cranmer wrote:> I read somewhere that thesedays people consider checked exceptions to be anJava is unique (AFAIK) in having checked exceptions. And Java is the
experiment that failed. Instead of people adding
the exceptions required to the throw list or handling
the exceptions internally the exceptions are typically
mis-handled by doing a catch and report stack trace
and then ignoring them. I have seen quite a lot of this.
only language where I find exception handling workable. It makes writing
correct code easier and incorrect code harder: you already have the
exception, you might as well do something with it.
Well, that's the theory but all too often to the practise is:
the exceptions are typically mis-handled by doing a catch and
report stack trace and then ignoring them. I have seen quite a lot of
this.
Not really.
It is a common practice in unimportant throw away programs,
demos posted on usenet etc..
It is not a common practice in serious applications.
Arne
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: exceptions: checked or unchecked?
- From: Lew
- Re: exceptions: checked or unchecked?
- References:
- exceptions: checked or unchecked?
- From: marlow . andrew
- Re: exceptions: checked or unchecked?
- From: Joshua Cranmer
- exceptions: checked or unchecked?
- Prev by Date: Re: regex problem
- Next by Date: Re: exceptions: checked or unchecked?
- Previous by thread: Re: exceptions: checked or unchecked?
- Next by thread: Re: exceptions: checked or unchecked?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
