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。

的确，受控异常一方面增加了程序的健壮性和正确性(你被迫对接口做出正确的声明——方法抛出的异常基本上是一种特殊的返回类型)。另一方面，你面临的问题是，由于异常“冒出来”，当你改变一个方法抛出的异常时，你经常需要改变大量的方法(所有的调用者，以及调用者的调用者，等等)。

Java中的受控异常不能解决后一个问题;c#和VB。我们把孩子和洗澡水一起倒掉。

OOPSLA 2005论文(或相关技术报告)中描述了一种折衷的好方法。

简而言之，它允许你说:方法g(x)像f(x)一样抛出，这意味着g抛出f抛出的所有异常。瞧，没有级联更改问题的受控异常。

虽然这是一篇学术论文，但我还是鼓励你阅读(部分)它，因为它很好地解释了受控异常的优点和缺点。

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。

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.

Robert C. Martin在他的著作《Clean Code》中也不推荐使用受控异常，他认为受控异常违反了开闭原则:

什么价格?受控异常的价格是Open/Closed Principle1侵犯。如果从方法抛出checked异常 在您的代码中，并且catch高于三级，您必须声明 实例之间的每个方法签名中的异常 抓住。这意味着在软件的低级别上的更改可以 在许多更高级别上强制更改签名。变更的模块 必须重建和重新部署，即使他们不关心 改变了。

我不想重复所有(许多)反对受控异常的原因，我只选一个。我已经记不清写了多少次这段代码了:

try {
  // do stuff
} catch (AnnoyingcheckedException e) {
  throw new RuntimeException(e);
}

99%的情况下我对此无能为力。最后，块进行必要的清理(或者至少它们应该这样做)。

我也记不清有多少次看到这样的场景:

try {
  // do stuff
} catch (AnnoyingCheckedException e) {
  // do nothing
}

为什么?因为有人要处理这件事，而且很懒。错了吗?确定。会发生吗?绝对的。如果这是一个未检查的异常呢?应用程序就会死掉(这比吞下一个异常更好)。

然后我们有一些令人愤怒的代码，它使用异常作为一种流控制形式，就像java.text.Format所做的那样。Bzzzt。错了。用户在表单的数字字段中输入“abc”也不例外。

好吧，我想这是三个原因。