尽管阅读了整页，我仍然找不到一个反对受控异常的合理论点。相反，大多数人都在谈论糟糕的API设计，无论是在一些Java类中还是在他们自己的类中。

这个功能唯一令人讨厌的地方就是原型设计。这可以通过向语言中添加一些机制来解决(例如，一些@supresscheckedexceptions注释)。但是对于常规编程，我认为受控异常是一件好事。

异常类

当谈到异常时，我总是会参考Eric Lippert的恼人异常博客文章。他将例外情况分为以下几类:

Fatal - These exceptions are not your fault: you cannot prevent then, and you cannot sensibly handle them. For example, OutOfMemoryError or ThreadAbortException. Boneheaded - These exceptions are your fault: you should have prevented them, and they represent bugs in your code. For example, ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException, NullPointerException or any IllegalArgumentException. Vexing - These exceptions are not exceptional, not your fault, you cannot prevent them, but you'll have to deal with them. They are often the result of an unfortunate design decision, such as throwing NumberFormatException from Integer.parseInt instead of providing an Integer.tryParseInt method that returns a boolean false on parse failure. Exogenous - These exceptions are usually exceptional, not your fault, you cannot (reasonably) prevent them, but you must handle them. For example, FileNotFoundException.

API用户:

不能处理致命或愚蠢的异常。 应该处理令人烦恼的异常，但它们不应该出现在理想的API中。 必须处理外生异常。

已检查的异常

API用户必须处理特定的异常，这是调用方和被调用方之间的方法契约的一部分。契约指定了被调用方期望的参数的数量和类型，调用方期望的返回值类型，以及调用方期望处理的异常。

由于API中不应该存在令人烦恼的异常，因此只有这些外生异常必须作为方法契约的一部分进行检查。相对较少的异常是外生的，因此任何API都应该有相对较少的受控异常。

受控异常是必须处理的异常。处理异常就像吞下它一样简单。在那里!异常被处理。时期。如果开发者想这样处理，没问题。但他不能忽视这个例外，已经得到了警告。

API的问题

但是任何检查了令人烦恼和致命异常的API(例如JCL)都会给API用户带来不必要的压力。必须处理这样的异常，但是要么异常太常见，以至于一开始就不应该是异常，要么在处理它时什么都做不了。这导致Java开发人员讨厌受控异常。

此外，许多api没有适当的异常类层次结构，导致各种非外生异常原因都由单个受控异常类表示(例如IOException)。这也导致Java开发人员讨厌受控异常。

结论

外生异常指的是那些不是您的错、无法预防、并且应该处理的异常。这些构成了所有可能引发的异常的一个小子集。api应该只检查外生异常，所有其他异常都不检查。这将使API更好，给API用户带来更少的压力，从而减少捕获所有、吞咽或重新抛出未经检查的异常的需要。

所以不要讨厌Java和它的受控异常。相反，讨厌那些过度使用受控异常的api。

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.

我认为这是一个很好的问题，没有任何争论。我认为第三方库(通常)应该抛出未经检查的异常。这意味着你可以隔离你对库的依赖(也就是说，你既不用重新抛出它们的异常，也不用抛出异常——这通常是不好的做法)。Spring的DAO层就是一个很好的例子。

On the other hand, exceptions from the core Java API should in general be checked if they could ever be handled. Take FileNotFoundException or (my favourite) InterruptedException. These conditions should almost always be handled specifically (i.e. your reaction to an InterruptedException is not the same as your reaction to an IllegalArgumentException). The fact that your exceptions are checked forces developers to think about whether a condition is handle-able or not. (That said, I've rarely seen InterruptedException handled properly!)

还有一件事——RuntimeException并不总是“开发人员出错的地方”。当您尝试使用valueOf创建枚举且没有该名称的枚举时，将抛出非法参数异常。这并不一定是开发者的错误!

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.

没有人提到的一件重要的事情是它如何干扰接口和lambda表达式。

假设您定义了MyAppException扩展异常。它是由应用程序抛出的所有异常继承的顶级异常。在某些地方，您不想对特定的异常做出反应，您希望调用者解决它，因此您声明throws MyAppException。

一切看起来都很好，直到你想使用别人的界面。显然它们没有声明抛出MyAppException的意图，所以编译器甚至不允许你调用在那里声明抛出MyAppException的方法。这对于java.util.function来说尤其痛苦。

但是，如果您的异常扩展了RuntimeException，那么接口就不会有问题。如果愿意，可以在JavaDoc中提到异常。但除此之外，它只是无声地穿过任何东西。当然，这意味着它可以终止你的申请。但是在很多企业软件中都有异常处理层，未检查的异常可以省去很多麻烦。