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。

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。

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?

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.

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……：）

In my opinion the checked exceptions are a very fine concept. Unfortunately the most programmers who have worked together we me have another opinion so that the projects have a lot of wrong used exception handling. I have seen that the most programmers create one (only one) exception class, a subclass of RuntimeException. That contains a message, sometimes a multi language key. I have no chance to argument against this. I have the impression that I talk to a wall when I explain them what anti patterns are, what a contracts of a methods are... I'm a little bit disappointed.

但是今天，对所有事情都有一个通用运行时异常的概念显然是一种反模式。他们使用它来检查用户输入。该异常被抛出，以便用户对话框可以从中产生错误消息。但并不是每个方法的调用者都是对话!通过抛出运行时异常，方法的契约被更改但没有声明，因为它不是一个受控异常。

希望他们今天学到了一些东西，并将在另一个地方进行检查(这是有用和必要的)。只使用受控异常不能解决问题，但受控异常会向程序员发出信号，表明他实现了错误的东西。