> That's exactly why I said that so few people understand checked exceptions. > The developers who wrote these methods and decided that they should throw > checked exceptions clearly didn't understand this, and they contributed > greatly to giving this bad image to checked exceptions. > > You are pointing out a bad usage of checked exceptions, not invalidating the > concept. > > I think we are in agreement that checked exceptions should be rare, but they > should be *allowed* because in the few cases where they are useful, they are > *really* useful. >
Let me state it this way - as they are implemented in Java I think they are a net negative and I would *NEVER* use a Checked Exception. And I don't. I wrap all Checked Exceptions as RuntimeExceptions so this reduces the pain. I write lots of Groovy and Ruby and have never missed not having a CheckedException. All runtime exceptions has never been a pain point for me. The concept of Checked Exceptions might be OK in theory, but someone needs to come up with an alternate approach. That's why I said I think Reinier's idea has merit. But it would have to go thru a trial phase to see if it really works as theorized. Java's implementation has been a 15 year failed experiment IMO. -- 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.
