That's sort of like saying that "you can't guarantee that violence isn't a
standard practice for resolving conflict; however dubious you personally may
feel it is, this is a standard technique for many people". Just because "it
happens" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to STOP it. :-)
The fact is, if they want to engage in dubious practices, then they pay the
penalty for doing so. In this case, the penalty is decreased speed and
performance. They want to improve the speed, they need to come into line
with how the tool's supposed to be used. Let's not blame the tool and/or
platform here for what's essentially their problem!
Ted Neward
{.NET || Java} Course Author & Instructor, DevelopMentor
(http://www.develop.com)
http://www.javageeks.com/tneward
http://www.clrgeeks.com/tneward
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Syme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: [DOTNET-ROTOR] [OT] double-pass exception semantic - Why?
> Hi Ken,
>
> Your response assumes that programmers write code the way they are
"supposed" to, i.e. you're assuming something code that simply may not be
valid in practice. On a platform like .NET you can't guarantee that na�ve
programmers won't use exceptions for control, e.g. raise an exception if an
element isn't found in the domain of a dictionary and then catch it to go
look somewhere else.
>
> I will take a bet that no matter what is "supposed" to happen, there will
still be many programs running on CLRs that use exceptions for control.
However dubious you personally may feel it is, this is a standard
programming technique for many people.
>
> Cheers,
> Don
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Alverson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 03 May 2002 04:40
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [DOTNET-ROTOR] [OT] double-pass exception semantic - Why?
>
> > From: Cristian Diaconu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Posted At: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:18 PM
> > Subject: [OT] double-pass exception semantic - Why?
> >
> > Against 1. The cost of handling every exception is *in theory* twice
> the
> > cost it would have been if filters would not have existed. It is
> important
> > to emphasize the difference between theory and practice and I'll get
> > back to that in a second.
>
> The point of exceptions is they are only supposed to happen in
> exceptional conditions. This means the speed of the exceptional case
> should not be important as long as the common case (non-exceptional) is
> fast. As far as I can tell, two-pass exception handling doesn't have
> adverse effects on the common case performance, so speed arguments are a
> red herring.
>
> Ken
>
