On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Doug <[email protected]> wrote: > > By the way, when you you advocate NOT checking the return value of C > runtime functions? You'd just write to an unknown file descriptor > even after a failed call to open() and just wait for the fallout? >
I never said this, and how is this related to checked exceptions? The whole point is, that with checked exceptions you are forced to handle or re-throw/declare them even if you don't what to do that *in that particular part* of your code. Nobody is saying 'we will ignore all exceptions and keep our fingers crossed'. > > Who? The posters in your example don't seem particularly smart. They > appear to me to be lazy or outright complainers. Do your own research. 'They' have written multiple books about Java and other languages. You might not agree with their ideas, but 'lazy'? BTW, if it weren't for 'complainers' who find faults with current technology and invent new things, you would still be writing in assembler or using a stone club. > > I've gotten a lot of mileage from exceptions under Android and it's > forced me to be diligent in writing bulletproof code. But then again, > I actually care about my customers and the user experience of the > applications I've written. My apps haven't generated any exception > crash in over a year and customer satisfaction is high. Thank you, > checked exceptions. Good for you, but that's irrelevant. You might have a stable application, but one can produce one without using checked exceptions. The fact that most languages don't even have a concept of a 'checked' exception is ample proof of this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
