| |
| ▲ | p_ing 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Incorrect" okay, based on a brand-new-to-C# developer's experience. Sure. "The Trouble with Checked Exceptions" - https://www.artima.com/articles/the-trouble-with-checked-exc... | | |
| ▲ | Cpoll 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In the linked article, Hejlsberg considers adding a new checked exception a breaking change (true), but adding a new thrown exception to not be, because "in a lot of cases, people don't care." I think this is obviously open to debate. You're conflating "incorrect" with "mistake," no one is saying the C# team forgot to add checked exceptions. | |
| ▲ | breadwinner 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have a lot of respect for Anders Hejlsberg. But that doesn't mean he is never wrong. Hejlsberg doesn't think anyone would want to recover from exceptions. "There's a bottom level exception handler around their message loop. That handler is just going to bring up a dialog that says what went wrong and continue." Okaayyy... I think we know a bit more about exception handling than that today! Real-world applications often need more sophisticated exception handling strategies. | | |
| ▲ | p_ing 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Something went wrong." <insert correlation id> [no option to continue] Those are our error messages of today. And yes, even the brightest can be wrong from time to time or frequently | | |
| ▲ | breadwinner 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Those are our error messages of today. Is that in your .NET code? Time to switch to Java! |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | neonsunset 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Surely you're not arguing in favour of checked exceptions, which are widely regarded by Java programmers as a mistake, are you? (not sure but I think I saw you argue in favour of that previously before getting quickly pointed out all the issues with checked exceptions) In either case I encourage you to try out .NET before making a statement, there's a good chance it will pleasantly surprise you. |
|
