On 26/07/2015 23:58, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 26 July 2015 at 18:13:30 UTC, Tobias Müller wrote:
Alix Pexton <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25/07/2015 9:48 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Unfortunately, Bruce Eckel's seminal article on it
http://www.mindview.net/Etc/Discussions/CheckedExceptions has
disappeared. Eckel is not a Java code monkey, he wrote the book
Thinking
In Java
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0131002872/
https://web.archive.org/web/20150515072240/http://www.mindview.net/Etc/Discussions/CheckedExceptions
This is article not convincing at all. His argument is basically "Most
programmers are sloppy and tend to catch and ignore checked exceptions."
No it is that checked Exception encourage this behavior.
Ultimately, checked exception are a failure as they completely break
encapsulation. Let's say you have a logger interface. Some of its
implementation will just send the log to Dave Null, some write it in a
file, some will send it over the network to some tailor, and so on. The
class of error that arise from each is completely different and cannot
be listed exhaustively at the interface level in any meaningful way.
Then define the logger interface as throwing a generic Exception class.
(a class that sits at the top of the hierarchy of the other Exceptions)
--
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
