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。

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.

试图解决这个尚未解决的问题:

如果抛出RuntimeException子类而不是Exception子类，那么您如何知道应该捕获什么?

恕我直言，这个问题包含似是而非的推理。仅仅因为API告诉你它抛出了什么并不意味着你在所有情况下都以相同的方式处理它。 换句话说，您需要捕获的异常取决于您使用抛出异常的组件的上下文。

例如:

如果我正在为数据库编写连接测试程序，或者编写检查用户输入XPath的有效性的程序，那么我可能希望捕获并报告操作抛出的所有已检查和未检查的异常。

然而，如果我正在编写一个处理引擎，我可能会以与NPE相同的方式处理XPathException (checked):我将让它运行到工作线程的顶部，跳过该批处理的其余部分，记录问题(或将其发送给支持部门进行诊断)，并为用户联系支持人员留下反馈。

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。

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。