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?

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?

在过去的三年中，我一直在与一些开发人员一起开发相对复杂的应用程序。我们有一个代码库，它经常使用检查异常，并进行适当的错误处理，而其他一些代码库则没有。

So far, I have it found easier to work with the code base with Checked Exceptions. When I am using someone else's API, it is nice that I can see exactly what kind of error conditions I can expect when I call the code and handle them properly, either by logging, displaying or ignoring (Yes, there is valid cases for ignoring exceptions, such as a ClassLoader implementation). That gives the code I am writing an opportunity to recover. All runtime exceptions I propagate up until they are cached and handled with some generic error handling code. When I find a checked exception that I don't really want to handle at a specific level, or that I consider a programming logic error, then I wrap it into a RuntimeException and let it bubble up. Never, ever swallow an exception without a good reason (and good reasons for doing this are rather scarce)

当我使用没有检查异常的代码库时，它使我在调用函数时很难预先知道我期望什么，这可能会严重破坏一些东西。

当然，这完全取决于开发者的偏好和技能。编程和错误处理的两种方式可能同样有效(或无效)，所以我不会说只有一种方法。

总而言之，我发现使用受控异常更容易，特别是在有很多开发人员的大型项目中。

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。

这篇文章是我读过的关于Java异常处理的最好的文章。

它更倾向于未检查的异常，而不是已检查的异常，但这个选择的解释非常透彻，并基于强有力的论据。

我不想在这里引用太多的文章内容(最好是整体阅读)，但它涵盖了这个线程中未检查异常倡导者的大部分论点。尤其是这个论点(似乎很受欢迎):

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)。

作者“回应”:

It is absolutely incorrect to assume that all runtime exceptions should not be caught and allowed to propagate to the very "top" of the application. (...) For every exceptional condition that is required to be handled distinctly - by the system/business requirements - programmers must decide where to catch it and what to do once the condition is caught. This must be done strictly according to the actual needs of the application, not based on a compiler alert. All other errors must be allowed to freely propagate to the topmost handler where they would be logged and a graceful (perhaps, termination) action will be taken.

主要的思想或文章是:

当涉及到软件中的错误处理时，唯一安全且正确的假设是，存在的每个子程序或模块都可能发生故障!

因此，如果“没有人知道这个错误甚至可能发生”，那么这个项目就有问题了。像作者建议的那样，这种异常至少应该由最通用的异常处理程序来处理(例如，处理所有没有更特定的处理程序处理的异常)。

很遗憾，似乎没有多少人发现这篇伟大的文章:-(。我衷心建议每一个犹豫哪种方法更好的人花点时间阅读它。

《有效的Java异常》一文很好地解释了什么时候使用未检查的异常，什么时候使用已检查的异常。以下是那篇文章中的一些引语，以突出其要点:

应急预案: 一种期望的条件，要求方法提供可根据该方法的预期目的来表达的替代响应。方法的调用者期望这些类型的条件，并有一个策略来处理它们。 错: 一种计划外的情况，阻止方法实现其预期目的，如果不参考方法的内部实现，则无法描述该情况。

(SO不支持表格，所以你可能想从原始页面阅读以下内容…)

Contingency Is considered to be: A part of the design Is expected to happen: Regularly but rarely Who cares about it: The upstream code that invokes the method Examples: Alternative return modes Best Mapping: A checked exception Fault Is considered to be: A nasty surprise Is expected to happen: Never Who cares about it: The people who need to fix the problem Examples: Programming bugs, hardware malfunctions, configuration mistakes, missing files, unavailable servers Best Mapping: An unchecked exception