2011/3/24 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Casper Bang <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > Having done a bit of C# development where exceptions are not checked >> > there were some times when I missed them. >> >> The full story is that the designers of C# were not convinced that >> they were worth the trouble. > > > Actually, no. The full story is that .net could not support checked > exceptions for backward compatibility reasons. Anything else you hear is > post rationalization. > > By the way, this is the very same reason why C++ couldn't have checked > exceptions either. > >
C++ works a bit differently, where specifying exceptions is supposed to enforce that you can ONLY throw the declared exceptions - opposite to to approach Java takes, where declared exceptions are added to the runtime exceptions that can be thrown regardless. There's a good write-up of it here: http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill22.htm -- > Cédric > > > -- > 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. > -- Kevin Wright gtalk / msn : [email protected] <[email protected]>mail: [email protected] vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright twitter: @thecoda "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- 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.
