When did I say anything about ignoring? No one is advocating ignoring exceptions. You (usually) let them bubble up to the top thread and either log, present to user, notify to sys admin (email), or any combination of these.
Checked exceptions are what leads to ignoring because developers tend to either swallow the exception or log and continue as if nothing has happened with no notification to the user that everything is jacked and (for example) their order hasn't been taken. 2011/3/28 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> > > > 2011/3/28 phil swenson <[email protected]> > >> Most of the time I can't do anything about an exception and checked >> exceptions force me to write boiler plate to deal with them - either giant >> throws clauses or wrap in another exception. So I argue the cost of having >> to deal with them in every case (checked) is greater than the cost of >> dealing with them in the rare case (unchecked). > > > The cost to you, the developer, yes, especially since Java's use of checked > exceptions in the libraries is pretty bad, as we all agreed. > > But the point is not to make *your* life easier, it's to produce robust > software. Following your reasoning, you would probably also want to ignore > error codes. > > Every time you end up having to think about an error case and actually > doing something about it (even if it's intentionally ignoring it because > it's harmless), the software you ship ends up being more robust. > > If I have to choose, I prefer to err on the side of robustness, even if it > costs me (the developer) some frustration. But I'm certainly always looking > for ways to make my life easier, as long as it doesn't negatively impact the > quality of the code I ship. > > -- > 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.
