Bane, el 8 de junio a las 14:42 me escribiste: > > > Is a trade-off. When you don't handle the errors, exceptions might be > > > a win, but when you do handle them, I'm not so sure. And again, I'm not > > > saying I particularly like one more than the other, I don't have a > > > strong opinion =) > > > > > Of course, the problem is that you rarely see the former code. Most > > of the time, people just write the second one with or without > > exceptions and don't bother about error checking if there are no > > exceptions. You are a lot more likely to get them to handle errors > > properly with exceptions than without (particularly with D's scope > > statements). > > Being lazy as I am, exceptions are faster and easier to use than > manual error checking. There will always be some unchecked return > value, with exceptions it can't happen. In a way same as GC vs manual > memory handling. > > Each thread of program I make I always enclose in try catch, so > everything is cought.
Yes, I agree that "safety" is the best argument in favour of exceptions (as explicitness is the best argument in favour of no-exceptions). The Python Zen put it this way: Errors should never pass silently. Unless explicitly silenced. That's what I like the most about exceptions. I think try/catch is really ugly though. There has to be something better. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Que barbaridad, este país se va cada ves más pa' tras, más pa' tras... -- Sidharta Kiwi
