Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: can't throw
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:27:13 -0600
Organization: Behind the screen, Lady Cai overhears a secret
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <ydnvcfjqhhq.fsf@shell.xmission.com>
References: <19af6b94-7a1e-4491-afb2-79782406f560@googlegroups.com> <k2o8sm$ve3$1@dont-email.me> <fea53dab-0659-4f9f-af44-c181c4508aa1@googlegroups.com> <504fe3a6$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <zy7f3qajj0sa.u9hsothk0nnw$.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="75975abe3fe3503ca7350803ab98e478"; logging-data="8281"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/cGhsA8kzxQo8olctUL/IY"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:h/3ITxPKaarVqje4eJ6Qs69wHK4= sha1:LyvtELL4qoJSqDrGsGynBoulEs8=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:18682

Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> writes:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:21:38 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> But given that languages invented after Java chose not to
>> implement checked exceptions, then we must conclude that
>> it has not caught on.
>> 
>> (primarily thinking of C# and Scala here)
>> 
>> So the benefits are not that obvious to everyone.
>
> And more to the point, those other languages do not seem to suffer greatly,
> if at all, from the lack of checked exceptions.
>
> For whatever reason, I've never found checked exceptions a compelling
> feature.  It's absolutely in the right spirit, one which I agree
> wholeheartedly with.  And yet I find that at least in the Java
> implementation, it seems to create more headaches than it prevents.
>
> I realize I'm in the minority here.  But it's a viewpoint I feel needs to
> be expressed.
>

The major problem I had with checked exceptions was fixed in Java 1.4,
when they introduced a standard way to wrap exceptions without losing
the original stack trace.  Java 7 lets you handle all the bogus
exceptions in a single catch clause, so there's a minor nuisance gone.

And if you really need it, there's always

public static void throwChecked(final Exception e) {
    class Thrower {
        public Thrower() throws Exception {
            throw e;
        }
    }

    try {
        Thrower.class.newInstance();
    } catch (InstantiationException e1) {
        throw new RuntimeException(e1);    // bogus exception: cannot happen
    } catch (IllegalAccessException e1) {
        throw new RuntimeException(e1);    // bogus exception: cannot happen
    }
}

Not that I recommend doing this, but it *is* possible...

-- 
Jim Janney