良好的证明Checked Exception是不需要的:

A lot of framework that does some work for Java. Like Spring that wraps JDBC exception to unchecked exceptions, throwing messages to the log Lot of languages that came after java, even on top on java platform - they do not use them Checked exceptions, it is kind prediction about how the client would use the code that throws an exception. But a developer who writes this code would never know about the system and business that client of code is working in. As an example Interfcace methods that force to throw checked exception. There are 100 implementation over the system, 50 or even 90 of implementations do not throw this exception, but the client still must to catch this exception if he user reference to that interface. Those 50 or 90 implementations tend to handle those exceptions inside themself, putting exception to the log (and this is good behavior for them). What we should do with that? I would better have some background logic that would do all that job - sending message to the log. And If I, as a client of code, would feel I need handle the exception - I will do it. I may forget about it, right - but if I use TDD, all my steps are covered and I know what I want. Another example when I'm working with I/O in java, it forces me to check all exception, if file does not exists? what I should do with that? If it does not exists, the system would not go to the next step. The client of this method, would not get expected content from that file - he can handle Runtime Exception, otherwise I should first check Checked Exception, put a message to log, then throw exception up out form the method. No...no - I would better do it automatically with RuntimeEception, that does it / lits up automatically. There is no any sense to handle it manually - I would be happy I saw an error message in the log (AOP can help with that.. something that fixes java). If, eventually, I deice that system should shows pop-up message to the end user - I will show it, not a problem.

我很高兴java能让我选择使用什么，当使用核心库时，比如I/O。Like提供了相同类的两个副本——一个用RuntimeEception包装。然后我们可以比较人们会使用什么。但是现在，很多人会选择java或其他语言之上的框架。比如Scala, JRuby等等。许多人相信SUN是对的。

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 !

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。

程序员需要知道一个方法可能抛出的所有异常，以便正确地使用它。因此，仅仅用一些异常来打击他并不一定能帮助一个粗心的程序员避免错误。

微小的好处被繁重的成本所抵消(特别是在较大、不太灵活的代码库中，不断修改接口签名是不切实际的)。

Static analysis can be nice, but truly reliable static analysis often inflexibly demands strict work from the programmer. There is a cost-benefit calculation, and the bar needs to be set high for a check that leads to a compile time error. It would be more helpful if the IDE took on the role of communicating which exceptions a method may throw (including which are unavoidable). Although perhaps it would not be as reliable without forced exception declarations, most exceptions would still be declared in documentation, and the reliability of an IDE warning is not so crucial.

良好的证明Checked Exception是不需要的:

A lot of framework that does some work for Java. Like Spring that wraps JDBC exception to unchecked exceptions, throwing messages to the log Lot of languages that came after java, even on top on java platform - they do not use them Checked exceptions, it is kind prediction about how the client would use the code that throws an exception. But a developer who writes this code would never know about the system and business that client of code is working in. As an example Interfcace methods that force to throw checked exception. There are 100 implementation over the system, 50 or even 90 of implementations do not throw this exception, but the client still must to catch this exception if he user reference to that interface. Those 50 or 90 implementations tend to handle those exceptions inside themself, putting exception to the log (and this is good behavior for them). What we should do with that? I would better have some background logic that would do all that job - sending message to the log. And If I, as a client of code, would feel I need handle the exception - I will do it. I may forget about it, right - but if I use TDD, all my steps are covered and I know what I want. Another example when I'm working with I/O in java, it forces me to check all exception, if file does not exists? what I should do with that? If it does not exists, the system would not go to the next step. The client of this method, would not get expected content from that file - he can handle Runtime Exception, otherwise I should first check Checked Exception, put a message to log, then throw exception up out form the method. No...no - I would better do it automatically with RuntimeEception, that does it / lits up automatically. There is no any sense to handle it manually - I would be happy I saw an error message in the log (AOP can help with that.. something that fixes java). If, eventually, I deice that system should shows pop-up message to the end user - I will show it, not a problem.

我很高兴java能让我选择使用什么，当使用核心库时，比如I/O。Like提供了相同类的两个副本——一个用RuntimeEception包装。然后我们可以比较人们会使用什么。但是现在，很多人会选择java或其他语言之上的框架。比如Scala, JRuby等等。许多人相信SUN是对的。

Anders在软件工程电台的第97集中谈到了受控异常的陷阱，以及他为什么把它们排除在c#之外。