2011/3/24 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>: > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Alexey Zinger <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Use of exceptions is not usually something people rave about either way. >> Error handling is like doing dishes -- necessary, but hardly glamorous. >> Right now, people marvel at collections API, clever use of generics, >> annotations, whatever. But exceptions? People only complain about them, >> when they're inconveniently designed or just say nothing. I'm reluctant to >> say that any framework with checked exceptions in it, where people don't say >> anything about its exception API is a silent form of praise, but that's as >> good an answer as I can come up with off the cuff. > > Interesting observation. Indeed, when exceptions are well designed in a > framework, you just don't think about them. It's a bit like system > administrators: when they are doing a great job, you forget they even exist. > Spring is famous for having gone 100% runtime exceptions, and the least we > can say is that Spring users are not exactly quiet about Spring's exception > handling...
What? I can't think of a single well designed system involving checked exceptions. Period. I can think of a few that use unchecked well. And, having seen some slick uses of Either with Traversals, I've seen some ridiculously well done error handling with those types. (The Box type in lift is put to ridiculously nice usage in validating forms.) Checked exceptions? I'm at a loss. I'm not saying that just ditching checked exceptions makes for a robust API. I'm saying I don't know of a single robust API with them. I'll concede that the idea seems nice on paper. Still waiting to see a good delivery, though. -- 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.
