2011/3/27 Josh Berry <[email protected]> > 2011/3/27 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>: > > > > Phrasing these two things as mutually exclusive sounds fallacious to me. > > You simple are focusing on it in a different way than I am. I didn't > say they were completely exclusive. Just that they are not exactly > the same.
I don't think anyone ever claimed they were. > Imagine if you had to catch ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException all of the > time? Of course, it would be horrible. You're pointing out an area where Java is doing the right thing. > Same for Integer.parseInt. It is actually quite common that that will > fail. Agreed, which is why I *want* the compiler to remind me to check for errors. If it didn't, I'm pretty sure I would often forget to check and my application would crash for reasons that could most likely have been avoided. Same observation for URI parsing, by the way. > This is a diversion again. Until someone shows that checked > exceptions actually accomplished anything other than giving us a bunch > of horrible workarounds (where the best is to promote some "checked" > exceptions to runtime only ones), than the above statement is > irrelevant to them. > <sigh> Reinier gave you quite a few of them, as did I. I even added a couple in this very email, but nothing satisfies you. I think you have already decided what your opinion is and you're just choosing to ignore any argument that invalidates it. -- 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.
