Cristian Diaconu wrote: > Well, yes, but I would also argue that, in this particular > case it's not only performance that is a concern but also > complexity.
Clearly (to me), the complexity of the CLI (I assume that is what you mean) was not a big issue for Microsoft. What they tried to do (and I applaud them for doing this), is build a platform for the next generation of software. One cannot hope to predict all possible future usage patterns of a platform, and so it is good to provide as wide a basis as possible. Exception filtering offers an option that *cannot* be implemented with CLI support, so if someone (or some language) were to require it at some latter stage, they would've been stuck had the CLI not support this. This is in my mind alone is a good justification. Besides I don't believe the cost is prohibitive. > The fact that exception handling is generally expensive is hardly a > justification for making it even more so. And even > programmers who know so > will continue to use expensive features which leads to a general > degradation of the entire platform experience (cannonical > Java example - Xerces library). Ted Neward already addressed this in his reply on Rotor list (and I fully agree with him). Regards, Jeroen You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from Advanced DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
