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.

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.

这个问题

我所看到的异常处理机制最糟糕的问题是它引入了大规模的代码复制!让我们诚实地说:在大多数项目中，在95%的时间里，开发人员真正需要做的就是以某种方式与用户沟通(在某些情况下，也需要与开发团队沟通，例如通过发送带有堆栈跟踪的电子邮件)。因此，通常在处理异常的每个地方都使用相同的代码行/块。

让我们假设我们在每个catch块中对某种类型的检查异常做简单的日志记录:

try{
   methodDeclaringCheckedException();
}catch(CheckedException e){
   logger.error(e);
}

如果这是一个常见的异常，那么在更大的代码库中甚至可能有数百个这样的try-catch块。现在让我们假设我们需要引入基于弹出对话框的异常处理，而不是控制台日志记录，或者开始额外向开发团队发送电子邮件。

等一下……我们真的要在代码中编辑这几百个位置吗?你明白我的意思:-)。

解决方案

为了解决这个问题，我们引入了异常处理程序的概念(我将进一步将其称为EH)来集中异常处理。对于每个需要处理异常的类，依赖注入框架都会注入一个异常处理程序实例。所以异常处理的典型模式现在看起来像这样:

try{
    methodDeclaringCheckedException();
}catch(CheckedException e){
    exceptionHandler.handleError(e);
}

现在要定制我们的异常处理，我们只需要更改一个地方的代码(EH代码)。

当然，对于更复杂的情况，我们可以实现eh的几个子类，并利用DI框架提供给我们的特性。通过改变我们的DI框架配置，我们可以轻松地在全局切换EH实现，或者为有特殊异常处理需求的类提供特定的EH实现(例如使用Guice @Named注释)。

这样我们就可以区分应用程序的开发版本和发布版本中的异常处理行为。开发——记录错误并停止应用程序，用更详细的信息刺激记录错误并让应用程序继续执行)。

最后一点

最后但并非最不重要的是，似乎可以通过将异常“向上传递”直到它们到达某个顶级异常处理类来获得同样的集中化。但这会导致代码和方法签名的混乱，并引入本线程中其他人提到的维护问题。

我们已经看到了c#首席架构师的一些参考。

下面是Java人员关于何时使用受控异常的另一种观点。他承认了其他人提到的许多负面因素: 有效的异常

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。