Re: Unchecked exceptions for IO considered harmful.

What? Is a mechanical invention device. 2016-08-15 16:48 GMT-05:00 Martin Thompson : > This thread is now way off the topic of mechanical sympathy. > > Please lets keep it focused. > > Martin... > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Lynx Queue - a new SP/SC queue

2c, as my name was mentioned:The technique is novel, it's a neat magic trick :-)When referring to the JCTools SPSC please note I can't take credit, it's a mashup of great ideas from Martin, FastFlow, BQueue and so on.AFAIK for Java code this approach is not attainable.Given that for most people

Re: Unchecked exceptions for IO considered harmful.

+1 On 15 August 2016 at 15:05, Avi Kivity wrote: > Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a Java group. As far as I can > tell, it has nothing to do with mechanical sympathy. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Unchecked exceptions for IO considered harmful.

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a Java group. As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with mechanical sympathy. On 08/15/2016 05:00 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: Why is it egregious? It's detailed in the types of exceptions it throws, yes, but that's good assuming you want to

Re: Unchecked exceptions for IO considered harmful.

Why is it egregious? It's detailed in the types of exceptions it throws, yes, but that's good assuming you want to handle some of those types (and there are cases where those exceptions can be handled properly). Even before ReflectiveOperationException, you could use multi-catch since Java 7 to

Re: Unchecked exceptions for IO considered harmful.

IMHO the most egregious use of ChekedExceptions is in Javas Reflection API, and I cry when I think how beautiful it could have been verses how cumbersome reflection can be (My SmallTalk friends laugh about it) (To construct an instance of an object and then call a method on it) try {