On Aug 4, 11:30 am, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, C# has many great features. However, it is a pitty that C# has > > not checked exceptions. > > To restate Fabrizio Giudici from earlier, it's funny how one mans > feature is another mans bug. While they can occasionally be useful, > the debate is over. Checked exceptions offers more drawbacks than > benefits, especially in how they pollute the signature and leak > abstractions. No other language introduced them before or after Java > for the same reason.
It seems to me most people have a problem with the way checked exceptions have been used, rather than the concept itself. After all, in Java, we can use both checked and unchecked exceptions, but perhaps the debate about when to use which didn't take place early enough in the language's development. I feel that when properly used, checked exceptions actually prevent leaky abstraction situations and unchecked exceptions can lead to them. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
