下面是反对受控异常的一个论点(来自joelonsoftware.com):

The reasoning is that I consider exceptions to be no better than "goto's", considered harmful since the 1960s, in that they create an abrupt jump from one point of code to another. In fact they are significantly worse than goto's: They are invisible in the source code. Looking at a block of code, including functions which may or may not throw exceptions, there is no way to see which exceptions might be thrown and from where. This means that even careful code inspection doesn't reveal potential bugs. They create too many possible exit points for a function. To write correct code, you really have to think about every possible code path through your function. Every time you call a function that can raise an exception and don't catch it on the spot, you create opportunities for surprise bugs caused by functions that terminated abruptly, leaving data in an inconsistent state, or other code paths that you didn't think about.

这并不是反对受控异常的纯概念，但是Java用于受控异常的类层次结构是一个畸形秀。我们总是简单地称这些东西为“异常”——这是正确的，因为语言规范也这样称呼它们——但是异常在类型系统中是如何命名和表示的呢?

By the class Exception one imagines? Well no, because Exceptions are exceptions, and likewise exceptions are Exceptions, except for those exceptions that are not Exceptions, because other exceptions are actually Errors, which are the other kind of exception, a kind of extra-exceptional exception that should never happen except when it does, and which you should never catch except sometimes you have to. Except that's not all because you can also define other exceptions that are neither Exceptions nor Errors but merely Throwable exceptions.

哪些是“已检查”异常?可抛出异常是受控异常，除非它们也是错误，是未检查的异常，然后是异常，也是可抛出异常，是受控异常的主要类型，除了有一个例外，那就是if它们也是runtimeexception，因为那是另一种未检查的异常。

What are RuntimeExceptions for? Well just like the name implies, they're exceptions, like all Exceptions, and they happen at run-time, like all exceptions actually, except that RuntimeExceptions are exceptional compared to other run-time Exceptions because they aren't supposed to happen except when you make some silly error, although RuntimeExceptions are never Errors, so they're for things that are exceptionally erroneous but which aren't actually Errors. Except for RuntimeErrorException, which really is a RuntimeException for Errors. But aren't all exceptions supposed to represent erroneous circumstances anyway? Yes, all of them. Except for ThreadDeath, an exceptionally unexceptional exception, as the documentation explains that it's a "normal occurrence" and that that's why they made it a type of Error.

Anyway, since we're dividing all exceptions down the middle into Errors (which are for exceptional execution exceptions, so unchecked) and Exceptions (which are for less exceptional execution errors, so checked except when they're not), we now need two different kinds of each of several exceptions. So we need IllegalAccessError and IllegalAccessException, and InstantiationError and InstantiationException, and NoSuchFieldError and NoSuchFieldException, and NoSuchMethodError and NoSuchMethodException, and ZipError and ZipException.

只不过，即使检查了异常，也总有(相当简单的)方法可以欺骗编译器，在不检查的情况下抛出异常。如果你这样做，你可能会得到一个不确定的throwableexception，除非在其他情况下，它可能抛出一个意外的dexception，或一个未知的异常(与未知的错误无关，只针对“严重的异常”)，或一个ExecutionException，或一个InvocationTargetException，或一个ExceptionInInitializerError。

哦，我们一定不能忘记Java 8时髦的新UncheckedIOException，这是一个RuntimeException异常，设计用来通过包装由I/O错误(不会引起IOError异常，尽管也存在)引起的已检查的IOException异常来抛出异常检查的概念，这些异常异常难以处理，因此您需要它们不被检查。

由于Java !

我在c2.com上写的文章与原来的CheckedExceptionsAreIncompatibleWithVisitorPattern基本没有变化

总而言之:

访问者模式(Visitor Pattern)及其亲属是一类接口，其中间接调用者和接口实现都知道异常，但接口和直接调用者组成了一个不知道异常的库。

CheckedExceptions的基本假设是，所有声明的异常都可以从调用带有该声明的方法的任何点抛出。VisitorPattern揭示了这个假设是错误的。

在这种情况下，受控异常的最终结果是大量无用的代码，本质上是在运行时删除编译器的受控异常约束。

至于根本问题:

我的总体想法是，顶级处理程序需要解释异常并显示适当的错误消息。我几乎总是看到IO异常、通信异常(由于某些原因api可以区分)或任务致命错误(程序错误或备份服务器上的严重问题)，所以如果我们允许对严重的服务器问题进行堆栈跟踪，这应该不会太难。

我认为这是一个很好的问题，没有任何争论。我认为第三方库(通常)应该抛出未经检查的异常。这意味着你可以隔离你对库的依赖(也就是说，你既不用重新抛出它们的异常，也不用抛出异常——这通常是不好的做法)。Spring的DAO层就是一个很好的例子。

On the other hand, exceptions from the core Java API should in general be checked if they could ever be handled. Take FileNotFoundException or (my favourite) InterruptedException. These conditions should almost always be handled specifically (i.e. your reaction to an InterruptedException is not the same as your reaction to an IllegalArgumentException). The fact that your exceptions are checked forces developers to think about whether a condition is handle-able or not. (That said, I've rarely seen InterruptedException handled properly!)

还有一件事——RuntimeException并不总是“开发人员出错的地方”。当您尝试使用valueOf创建枚举且没有该名称的枚举时，将抛出非法参数异常。这并不一定是开发者的错误!

试图解决这个尚未解决的问题:

如果抛出RuntimeException子类而不是Exception子类，那么您如何知道应该捕获什么?

恕我直言，这个问题包含似是而非的推理。仅仅因为API告诉你它抛出了什么并不意味着你在所有情况下都以相同的方式处理它。 换句话说，您需要捕获的异常取决于您使用抛出异常的组件的上下文。

例如:

如果我正在为数据库编写连接测试程序，或者编写检查用户输入XPath的有效性的程序，那么我可能希望捕获并报告操作抛出的所有已检查和未检查的异常。

然而，如果我正在编写一个处理引擎，我可能会以与NPE相同的方式处理XPathException (checked):我将让它运行到工作线程的顶部，跳过该批处理的其余部分，记录问题(或将其发送给支持部门进行诊断)，并为用户联系支持人员留下反馈。

受控异常的一个问题是，如果一个接口的一个实现使用了它，异常通常会附加到该接口的方法上。

受控异常的另一个问题是它们容易被滥用。java.sql就是一个完美的例子。连接的close()方法。它可以抛出一个SQLException，即使您已经显式地声明您已经完成了连接。close()可能传达了哪些您所关心的信息?

通常，当我关闭()一个连接*时，它看起来像这样:

try {
    conn.close();
} catch (SQLException ex) {
    // Do nothing
}

另外，不要让我开始各种解析方法和NumberFormatException... .NET的TryParse，它不抛出异常，使用起来要容易得多，以至于不得不回到Java(我工作的地方同时使用Java和c#)。

*作为额外的注释，PooledConnection的connection .close()甚至不关闭连接，但您仍然必须捕获SQLException，因为它是一个已检查异常。