Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Marko Rauhamaa Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Seekable files Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:26:57 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 33 Message-ID: <8760wnes0e.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> References: <56e7e57a$0$1589$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87a8m0dm96.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b7cb1518d23ec19d482dcc9c31d30fdd"; logging-data="6682"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LJ3SAvIsTaQBkIhMR1SZM" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:B1EQjF33ASDeGEiEuvNcVkUQmzQ= sha1:g6r0JQb9oGONh0vgL6yNuvENFCk= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:104940 Jon Ribbens : > On 2016-03-15, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> Having to specify the possible exceptions in Java is very painful and >> has complicated the introduction of closures to Java quite a bit. > > It is one of the extremely serious design errors in Java, I think. > >> I think it points to a big practical problem in the whole exception >> paradigm. > > Well, no. That one individual language screwed up its implementation > of exceptions does not mean the whole concept of exceptions is broken. Python and Java make two. >> Makes you wonder if the old error code mechanism would have >> been better, after all. ("Why does Go not have exceptions?" > https://golang.org/doc/faq>.) > > I think they are wrong, and indeed their argument seems to be a > ludicrous one based upon a misunderstanding of the English meaning of > the word "exception"! > > Any high-level language that does not include exceptions is not fit > for purpose, in my opinion. I reserve my judgement for now. However, let it be said that exceptions are supposed to make the code flow better. Instead, they are often making code awkward-looking and "bouncy." Marko