> build a fort to deflect the random exceptions they'll throw at you

Sounds like you hate exceptions, right? In which case why do you handle them at all? Just leave them all unhandled and suddenly every exception is a crash. Which is really no different from someone choosing to terminate. Which you have to worry about even without exceptions.

> if you have a C++ code base yet somehow have enough time and energy to write opinionated blog posts, it's really hard to imagine why you think you'd have a better take on this than Google.

"Given that Google's existing code is not exception-tolerant [...] Our advice against using exceptions is not predicated on philosophical or moral grounds, but practical ones. [...] Things would probably be different if we had to do it all over again from scratch."

▲

patrick451 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Which is really no different from someone choosing to terminate.

If you std::abort(), you'll get a useful stack trace in the core dump. If you crash from an unhandled exception, you don't. That's a pretty huge difference and is one of the reasons exceptions suck.

	▲	dataflow 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's nice but it's certainly not guaranteed by anything, just something provided by your toolchain or platform. ("Core dumps" aren't even a thing in C++.) If you're looking for implementation-specific guarantees then you could make that happen with exceptions too. I think on GCC replacing a function like __cxa_throw might be sufficient to let you capture a stack trace? If you're looking for source-level-only guarantees then another option is to just replace your throw <expr> statements with one that attaches whatever extra info you want. You could literally script this to patch your external repos automatically too. Or heck, maybe you could even just define throw to be a macro that shoves your stack trace into some global variable before actually throwing.

▲

badlibrarian 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]