Casper Bang wrote: >> Well, C# has many great features. However, it is a pitty that C# has >> not checked exceptions. >> > To restate Fabrizio Giudici from earlier, it's funny how one mans > feature is another mans bug. While they can occasionally be useful, > the debate is over. Checked exceptions offers more drawbacks than > benefits, especially in how they pollute the signature and leak > abstractions. No other language introduced them before or after Java > for the same reason. > All that's needed here is the exception transparency from BGGA. Without it, checked exceptions are unnecessarily painful.
More than closures themselves, Java needs exception transparency. According to Neil Gafter, exception transparency is the hardest, biggest change in BGGA. On the other hand, it is involves minimal mental or syntactic baggage -- it just adds sanity to dealing with checked exceptions. The rest of BGGA is technically far easier to implement and specify, but that's where all the mental and syntactic baggage debates spiral out of control. -- Jess Holle --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
