受控异常最初的形式是试图处理意外事件，而不是失败。值得称赞的目标是突出特定的可预测点(无法连接，文件未找到等)并确保开发者能够处理这些问题。

最初的概念中从未包括的是强制宣布大量系统性和不可恢复的故障。这些失败不能被声明为受控异常。

在代码中失败通常是可能的，EJB、web和Swing/AWT容器已经通过提供最外层的“失败请求”异常处理程序来满足这一点。最基本的正确策略是回滚事务并返回错误。

关键的一点是，运行时异常和受控异常在功能上是等价的。检查异常所能做的处理或恢复是运行时异常所不能做的。

反对“受控”异常的最大争论是大多数异常无法修复。简单的事实是，我们并不拥有发生故障的代码/子系统。我们看不到实现，我们不负责它，也不能修复它。

如果我们的应用程序不是一个数据库..我们不应该试图修复DB。这违反了封装原则。

特别有问题的是JDBC (SQLException)和用于EJB的RMI (RemoteException)。而不是根据最初的“受控异常”概念确定可修复的偶发事件，这些强制普遍存在的系统可靠性问题，实际上是不可修复的，被广泛宣布。

Java设计中的另一个严重缺陷是异常处理应该正确地放在尽可能高的“业务”或“请求”级别。这里的原则是“早扔晚接”。受控异常做的很少，但会阻碍这一点。

我们在Java中有一个明显的问题，即需要数千个不做任何事情的try-catch块，其中很大一部分(40%以上)被错误编码。这些方法几乎都没有实现任何真正的处理或可靠性，但会增加大量的编码开销。

最后，“受控异常”与FP函数式编程几乎不兼容。

他们对“立即处理”的坚持与“延迟捕获”异常处理最佳实践和任何抽象循环/或控制流的FP结构都不一致。

许多人谈论“处理”受控异常，但他们是在胡说八道。在失败后继续使用null、不完整或不正确的数据来假装成功没有处理任何事情。这是最低级的工程/可靠性渎职。

干净利落的失败，是处理异常最基本的正确策略。回滚事务、记录错误和向用户报告“失败”响应是良好的实践——最重要的是，防止不正确的业务数据提交到数据库。

在业务、子系统或请求级别上，异常处理的其他策略是“重试”、“重新连接”或“跳过”。所有这些都是通用的可靠性策略，并且在运行时异常时工作得更好。

最后，失败比使用不正确的数据运行要好得多。继续将导致次要错误，远离原始原因，更难调试;或者最终将导致提交错误的数据。有人会因此被解雇。

看到的: ——http://literatejava.com/exceptions/checked-exceptions-javas-biggest-mistake/

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.

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。

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.

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。

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。