> I'm not sure what you refer to exactly,
The various links from https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/io/IOException.html or even https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Exception.html > but I noted already that not all > references are equal, especially if you quote design decisions that date > back from the early Java days (when every textbook touted checked > exceptions as _the_ solution to robust programming). > So IllegalArgumentException is not from the early Java days? > ... > Ask yourself how the programmer will handle the exception ? If the > programmer > can’t do better than e.printStackTrace() or throw new AssertionError(), > then, an > unchecked exception is called for. > And I guess that's the point - the programmer can do better. There should be a difference of action when the code knows the archive is broken in contrast there being a problem with the code reading it (for whatever reason). One is "sorry, this is an invalid archive" while the other is "something went wrong reading the archive - printStackTrace". If that distinction is not important to you - so be it. To me that's a big difference. The "sorry, this is an invalid archive" is what makes the situation for me "recoverable". For me "recoverable" does not mean running the same code with the same input twice and expecting a different result. If you continue to read your link to "Effective Java", the use of "Optional" is suggested as the proper alternative to a checked exception. And to be honest I'd be all for that - on a new code base. But you'd still need figure out the "canCompute" to make the distinction between the two states.
