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.

好吧，这不是关于显示堆栈跟踪或无声崩溃。它是关于在层与层之间沟通错误的能力。

The problem with checked exceptions is they encourage people to swallow important details (namely, the exception class). If you choose not to swallow that detail, then you have to keep adding throws declarations across your whole app. This means 1) that a new exception type will affect lots of function signatures, and 2) you can miss a specific instance of the exception you actually -want- to catch (say you open a secondary file for a function that writes data to a file. The secondary file is optional, so you can ignore its errors, but because the signature throws IOException, it's easy to overlook this).

实际上，我现在在一个应用程序中处理这种情况。我们将异常重新打包为AppSpecificException。这使得签名非常干净，我们不必担心在签名中爆炸。

当然，现在我们需要在更高的级别上专门化错误处理，实现重试逻辑等等。所有的东西都是AppSpecificException，所以我们不能说“如果一个IOException被抛出，重试”或“如果ClassNotFound被抛出，完全中止”。我们没有可靠的方法来获得真正的异常，因为当它们在我们的代码和第三方代码之间传递时，东西会一次又一次地重新打包。

这就是为什么我非常喜欢python中的异常处理。你只能捕获你想要和/或能处理的东西。其他所有东西都冒出来了，就好像你自己重新扔了它一样(不管怎样你已经这么做了)。

我一次又一次地发现，在我提到的整个项目中，异常处理分为3类:

Catch and handle a specific exception. This is to implement retry logic, for example. Catch and rethrow other exceptions. All that happens here is usually logging, and its usually a trite message like "Unable to open $filename". These are errors you can't do anything about; only a higher levels knows enough to handle it. Catch everything and display an error message. This is usually at the very root of a dispatcher, and all it does it make sure it can communicate the error to the caller via a non-Exception mechanism (popup dialogue, marshaling an RPC Error object, etc).

我最初同意你的观点，因为我一直支持受控异常，并开始思考为什么我不喜欢在. net中没有受控异常。但后来我意识到我并不喜欢受控异常。

回答您的问题，是的，我喜欢我的程序显示堆栈跟踪，最好是非常难看的跟踪。我希望应用程序爆发成一堆您希望看到的最糟糕的错误消息。

原因是，如果出现这种情况，我必须修复它，而且必须马上修复。我想马上知道有什么问题。

您实际处理了多少次异常?我说的不是捕获异常——我说的是处理异常?这样写太简单了:

try {
  thirdPartyMethod();
} catch(TPException e) {
  // this should never happen
}

我知道你可能会说这是一种糟糕的实践，“答案”是做一些异常(让我猜猜，记录它?)，但在现实世界(tm)中，大多数程序员就是不这样做。

所以，是的，我不想捕捉异常，如果我没有必要这样做，我希望我的程序在我搞砸的时候爆炸。默默的失败是最糟糕的结果。

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。

正如人们已经说过的，Java字节码中不存在受控异常。它们只是一种编译器机制，与其他语法检查没有什么不同。我看到很多受控异常，就像我看到编译器抱怨一个冗余的条件:if(true) {a;b;}。这很有帮助，但我可能是故意这么做的，所以我忽略你的警告。

事实是，如果你强制执行受控异常，你将无法强迫每个程序员“做正确的事情”，而其他人现在都是附带损害，他们只是因为你制定的规则而讨厌你。

修复坏程序!不要试图修改语言来阻止它们!对于大多数人来说，“对异常做一些事情”实际上只是告诉用户它。我也可以告诉用户一个未检查的异常，所以不要让您的已检查异常类出现在我的API中。

Ok... Checked exceptions are not ideal and have some caveat but they do serve a purpose. When creating an API there are specific cases of failures that are contractual of this API. When in the context of a strongly statically typed language such as Java if one does not use checked exceptions then one must rely on ad-hoc documentation and convention to convey the possibility of error. Doing so removes all benefit that the compiler can bring in handling error and you are left completely to the good will of programmers.

因此，一个人删除了Checked异常，比如在c#中所做的，那么如何以编程和结构的方式传达错误的可能性呢?如何通知客户端代码，这样那样的错误可能发生，必须处理?

在处理受控异常时，我听到了各种可怕的事情，它们被滥用了，这是肯定的，但未受控异常也是如此。我说，等几年，当api被堆叠在很多层的时候，你会乞求某种结构化的方法来传达失败。

以异常在API层底部某处抛出的情况为例，因为没有人知道这个错误甚至可能发生，即使它是一种非常合理的错误类型，当调用代码抛出它时(例如FileNotFoundException而不是VogonsTrashingEarthExcept…)在这种情况下，我们是否处理它并不重要，因为没有任何东西可以处理它)。

Many have argued that not being able to load the file was almost always the end of the world for the process and it must die a horrible and painful death. So yeah.. sure ... ok.. you build an API for something and it loads file at some point... I as the user of said API can only respond... "Who the hell are you to decide when my program should crash !" Sure Given the choice where exceptions are gobbled up and leave no trace or the EletroFlabbingChunkFluxManifoldChuggingException with a stack trace deeper than the Marianna trench I would take the latter without a cinch of hesitation, but does this mean that it is the desirable way to deal with exception ? Can we not be somewhere in the middle, where the exception would be recast and wrapped each time it traversed into a new level of abstraction so that it actually means something ?

最后，我看到的大多数争论都是“我不想处理异常，许多人不想处理异常。受控异常迫使我去处理它们，因此我讨厌受控异常。”完全消除这种机制并将其降级到地狱的深渊是愚蠢的，缺乏判断力和远见。

如果我们消除了受控异常，我们也可以消除函数的返回类型，并且总是返回一个“anytype”变量……这样生活就简单多了，不是吗?