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。

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。

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.

Artima发表了一篇对。net架构师之一Anders Hejlsberg的采访，其中尖锐地讨论了反对受控异常的论点。品性差的人:

The throws clause, at least the way it's implemented in Java, doesn't necessarily force you to handle the exceptions, but if you don't handle them, it forces you to acknowledge precisely which exceptions might pass through. It requires you to either catch declared exceptions or put them in your own throws clause. To work around this requirement, people do ridiculous things. For example, they decorate every method with, "throws Exception." That just completely defeats the feature, and you just made the programmer write more gobbledy gunk. That doesn't help anybody.

我读了很多关于异常处理的书，即使(大多数时候)我不能真的说我对受控异常的存在感到高兴或悲伤，这是我的看法:在低级代码(IO，网络，OS等)中受控异常，在高级api /应用程序级别中未受控异常。

即使在它们之间没有那么容易划清界限，我发现在同一屋檐下集成几个api /库而不始终包装大量的检查异常是非常烦人/困难的，但另一方面，有时强制捕获一些异常并提供一个在当前上下文中更有意义的不同异常是有用/更好的。

The project I'm working on takes lots of libraries and integrates them under the same API, API which is completely based on unchecked exceptions.This frameworks provides a high-level API which in the beginning was full of checked exceptions and had only several unchecked exceptions(Initialization Exception, ConfigurationException, etc) and I must say was not very friendly. Most of the time you had to catch or re-throw exceptions which you don't know how to handle, or you don't even care(not to be confused with you should ignore exceptions), especially on the client side where a single click could throw 10 possible (checked) exceptions.

The current version(3rd one) uses only unchecked exceptions, and it has a global exception handler which is responsible to handle anything uncaught. The API provides a way to register exception handlers, which will decide if an exception is considered an error(most of the time this is the case) which means log & notify somebody, or it can mean something else - like this exception, AbortException, which means break the current execution thread and don't log any error 'cause it is desired not to. Of course, in order to work out all custom thread must handle the run() method with a try {...} catch(all).

公共无效运行(){

try {
     ... do something ...
} catch (Throwable throwable) {
     ApplicationContext.getExceptionService().handleException("Handle this exception", throwable);
}

}

如果您使用WorkerService来安排作业(Runnable, Callable, Worker)，这是不必要的，它会为您处理一切。

当然，这只是我的个人观点，它可能不是正确的，但对我来说这是一个很好的方法。我将在发布项目后看看我认为对我有好处的东西，对其他人也有好处……：）

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。