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?

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!

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?

SNR

首先，检查异常降低了代码的“信噪比”。Anders Hejlsberg也谈到了命令式编程和声明式编程，这是一个类似的概念。不管怎样，考虑下面的代码片段:

在Java中从非UI线程更新UI:

try {  
    // Run the update code on the Swing thread  
    SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(() -> {  
        try {
            // Update UI value from the file system data  
            FileUtility f = new FileUtility();  
            uiComponent.setValue(f.readSomething());
        } catch (IOException e) {  
            throw new UncheckedIOException(e);
        }
    });
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {  
    throw new IllegalStateException("Interrupted updating UI", ex);  
} catch (InvocationTargetException ex) {
    throw new IllegalStateException("Invocation target exception updating UI", ex);
}

在c#中从非UI线程更新UI:

private void UpdateValue()  
{  
   // Ensure the update happens on the UI thread  
   if (InvokeRequired)  
   {  
       Invoke(new MethodInvoker(UpdateValue));  
   }  
   else  
   {  
       // Update UI value from the file system data  
       FileUtility f = new FileUtility();  
       uiComponent.Value = f.ReadSomething();  
   }  
}  

这对我来说清楚多了。当您开始在Swing中做越来越多的UI工作时，检查异常开始变得非常烦人和无用。

监狱打破

即使要实现最基本的实现，比如Java的List接口，作为契约式设计工具的受控异常也行不通。考虑一个由数据库、文件系统或任何其他抛出受控异常的实现支持的列表。唯一可能的实现是捕获已检查异常，并将其作为未检查异常重新抛出:

@Override
public void clear()  
{  
   try  
   {  
       backingImplementation.clear();  
   }  
   catch (CheckedBackingImplException ex)  
   {  
       throw new IllegalStateException("Error clearing underlying list.", ex);  
   }  
}  

现在你要问所有这些代码的意义是什么?被检查的异常只是增加了噪音，异常被捕获但没有处理，契约式设计(就被检查的异常而言)已经失效。

结论

捕获异常与处理异常是不同的。 受控异常会给代码添加噪音。 没有它们，异常处理在c#中也能很好地工作。

我之前在博客上写过。

程序员需要知道一个方法可能抛出的所有异常，以便正确地使用它。因此，仅仅用一些异常来打击他并不一定能帮助一个粗心的程序员避免错误。

微小的好处被繁重的成本所抵消(特别是在较大、不太灵活的代码库中，不断修改接口签名是不切实际的)。

Static analysis can be nice, but truly reliable static analysis often inflexibly demands strict work from the programmer. There is a cost-benefit calculation, and the bar needs to be set high for a check that leads to a compile time error. It would be more helpful if the IDE took on the role of communicating which exceptions a method may throw (including which are unavoidable). Although perhaps it would not be as reliable without forced exception declarations, most exceptions would still be declared in documentation, and the reliability of an IDE warning is not so crucial.