On Jul 27, 6:35 pm, Nikolay Elenkov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Doug <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 1:25 am, Nikolay Elenkov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Doug <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I see checked exceptions as a compile-time reminder that it's always a > > good idea to handle potential errors. This is almost exactly the same > > concept as diligently checking the return codes from C functions that > > can fail. I suppose if you are the kind of engineer that doesn't make > > a priority of checking return codes, then you probably also don't like > > Java forcing you to do something with potential error conditions. > > You are making too many assumptions, but have fun with it. > I actually write all of my C code in a giant main() function and > I never ever check return codes. I am that good. I pass around > NULL pointers like crazy, but it's OK, because I'm a lucky guy. > Satisfied?
No, I'm not, because you're not using logic to address to issue at hand. > > If you are that kind of engineer (and I would argue that you are not > > actually an "engineer"), then don't use Java. > > Java is old. And because it's 'enterprise', it won't change much. > Checked exceptions is not the only problem with it. So yes, > when possible, I use more modern alternatives. Go on. I'm listening. Please don't just say "do your own research" or "smart people write about this". > >> 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'. > > > Truthfully, how often do you really NEED to ignore checked > > exceptions? It does come up, but not enough for me to get upset that > > I have to do it. For me, it's a few extra lines of code in a few > > places. > > Again, I never said ignore. I said 'don't handle in that particular place'. > A few extra lines of code multiplied by a hundred places makes for > a lot code bloat. Don't you just love it when you have to handle > IOException when calling close()? Please answer my question above. How often? In my experience (16 years) it's not common enough to complain about. There are cases, yes, but only on shutdown/termination. I don't obsess on those cases. I do them one and be done with it. It takes at most 1 minute out of my day. If you can't spare that 1 minute, then don't use Java. > We can go on forever, but there's not much point. Have fun with > your exceptions. Please make a case for your alternative. I'm listening. Please make it relevant to Android development, considering the forum in which we're participating. If you have an axe to grind against Java as a language, I suggest you do it elsewhere. Doug -- 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
