Dunno how backwards compatibility could possibly matter on a greenfield project (C#)...
I suggest reading this interview with Anders Hejlsberg (Turbo Pascal/Delphi/C# architect): http://www.artima.com/intv/handcuffs3.html A couple choice quotes: "It is funny how people think that the important thing about exceptions is handling them. That is not the important thing about exceptions. In a well-written application there's a ratio of ten to one, in my opinion, of try finally to try catch. " "The scalability issue is somewhat related to the versionability issue. In the small, checked exceptions are very enticing. With a little example, you can show that you've actually checked that you caught the FileNotFoundException, and isn't that great? Well, that's fine when you're just calling one API. The trouble begins when you start building big systems where you're talking to four or five different subsystems. Each subsystem throws four to ten exceptions. Now, each time you walk up the ladder of aggregation, you have this exponential hierarchy below you of exceptions you have to deal with. You end up having to declare 40 exceptions that you might throw. And once you aggregate that with another subsystem you've got 80 exceptions in your throws clause. It just balloons out of control." On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > Could you elaborate on that, it goes against all documented interviews > I've come by over the years? Also, how could there be a backwards > compatibility issue on a new runtime and language? > > On Mar 24, 7:00 pm, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > -- > > 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. > > -- 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.
