I have absolutely no clue what you're on about, Martin. Further replies inline.
On Jun 26, 8:46 am, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > Uhhhh - I would never ever do this. > 1. Just because Microsoft did not implement checked exceptions it does > not mean, .NET does it better. What the heck does either .NET or the notion of compiler-checked exceptions have to do with that snippet? It's an auto-complete feature. It has to put SOMETHING there. If you're making the argument that such an auto-complete concept shouldn't exist, that's another matter, but _GIVEN_ that it exists, what should it generate? None of this part of your argument explains why actually throwing some sort of exception is somehow worse than just logging/printing it and moving on. > > 2. A runtime exception means, that the developer is not pushed to > implement a handler which means the developer can easily forget to > handle an error that possibly is produced by a called method. Versus "e.printStackTrace()", which somehow pushes the developer to write something decent lickety split? -- 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.
