来自Java学习者:

When an exception occurs, you have to either catch and handle the exception, or tell compiler that you can't handle it by declaring that your method throws that exception, then the code that uses your method will have to handle that exception (even it also may choose to declare that it throws the exception if it can't handle it). Compiler will check that we have done one of the two things (catch, or declare). So these are called Checked exceptions. But Errors, and Runtime Exceptions are not checked for by compiler (even though you can choose to catch, or declare, it is not required). So, these two are called Unchecked exceptions. Errors are used to represent those conditions which occur outside the application, such as crash of the system. Runtime exceptions are usually occur by fault in the application logic. You can't do anything in these situations. When runtime exception occur, you have to re-write your program code. So, these are not checked by compiler. These runtime exceptions will uncover in development, and testing period. Then we have to refactor our code to remove these errors.

以下是我的“最终经验法则”。 我使用:

方法代码中由于调用者导致的失败而出现的未检查的异常(这涉及一个显式和完整的文档) 检查异常失败由于被调用，我需要明确的任何人想要使用我的代码

与前面的答案相比，这是使用一种或另一种(或两种)例外的明确理由(人们可以同意或不同意)。

对于这两个异常，我将为我的应用程序创建自己的未检查和已检查的异常(这里提到过，这是一个很好的实践)，除了非常常见的未检查异常(如NullPointerException)

例如，下面这个特定函数的目标是创建(如果已经存在，则获取)一个对象， 意义:

the container of the object to make/get MUST exist (responsibility of the CALLER => unchecked exception, AND clear javadoc comment for this called function) the other parameters can not be null (choice of the coder to put that on the CALLER: the coder will not check for null parameter but the coder DOES DOCUMENT IT) the result CAN NOT BE NULL (responsibility and choice of the code of the callee, choice which will be of great interest for the caller => checked exception because every callers MUST take a decision if the object can not be created/found, and that decision must be enforced at the compilation time: they can not use this function without having to deal with this possibility, meaning with this checked exception).

例子:

/**
 * Build a folder. <br />
 * Folder located under a Parent Folder (either RootFolder or an existing Folder)
 * @param aFolderName name of folder
 * @param aPVob project vob containing folder (MUST NOT BE NULL)
 * @param aParent parent folder containing folder 
 *        (MUST NOT BE NULL, MUST BE IN THE SAME PVOB than aPvob)
 * @param aComment comment for folder (MUST NOT BE NULL)
 * @return a new folder or an existing one
 * @throws CCException if any problems occurs during folder creation
 * @throws AssertionFailedException if aParent is not in the same PVob
 * @throws NullPointerException if aPVob or aParent or aComment is null
 */
static public Folder makeOrGetFolder(final String aFoldername, final Folder aParent,
    final IPVob aPVob, final Comment aComment) throws CCException {
    Folder aFolderRes = null;
    if (aPVob.equals(aParent.getPVob() == false) { 
       // UNCHECKED EXCEPTION because the caller failed to live up
       // to the documented entry criteria for this function
       Assert.isLegal(false, "parent Folder must be in the same PVob than " + aPVob); }

    final String ctcmd = "mkfolder " + aComment.getCommentOption() + 
        " -in " + getPNameFromRepoObject(aParent) + " " + aPVob.getFullName(aFolderName);

    final Status st = getCleartool().executeCmd(ctcmd);

    if (st.status || StringUtils.strictContains(st.message,"already exists.")) {
        aFolderRes = Folder.getFolder(aFolderName, aPVob);
    }
    else {
        // CHECKED EXCEPTION because the callee failed to respect his contract
        throw new CCException.Error("Unable to make/get folder '" + aFolderName + "'");
    }
    return aFolderRes;
}

我同意将未检查异常作为规则的偏好，特别是在设计API时。调用方总是可以选择捕获记录在案的、未检查的异常。你只是没有必要强迫打电话的人。

I find checked exceptions useful at the lower-level, as implementation detail. It often seems like a better flow of control mechanism than having to manage a specified error "return code". It can sometimes help see the impact of an idea for a low level code change too... declare a checked exception downstream and see who would need to adjust. This last point doesn't apply if there are a lot of generic: catch(Exception e) or throws Exception which is usually not too well-thought out anyway.

在任何一个足够大的系统上，有很多层，检查异常是无用的，因为无论如何，您需要一个架构级策略来处理异常将如何处理(使用故障屏障)。

使用受控异常，您的错误处理策略是微管理的，在任何大型系统上都无法承受。

大多数情况下，您不知道错误是否“可恢复”，因为您不知道API的调用者位于哪一层。

假设我创建了一个StringToInt API，用于将整数的字符串表示形式转换为Int。如果API是用“foo”字符串调用的，我必须抛出检查异常吗?它可以恢复吗?我不知道，因为在他的层中，我的StringToInt API的调用者可能已经验证了输入，如果抛出这个异常，它要么是一个错误，要么是一个数据损坏，它是不可恢复的这一层。

在这种情况下，API的调用者不想捕获异常。他只想让异常“冒出来”。如果我选择了一个受控异常，这个调用者将有大量无用的catch块，只能人为地重新抛出异常。

大多数时候，什么是可恢复的取决于API的调用者，而不是API的编写者。API不应该使用受控异常，因为只有未受控异常才允许选择捕获或忽略异常。

我使用的规则是:永远不要使用未经检查的异常!(或者当你看不到任何方法的时候)

有一种情况正好相反:永远不要使用受控异常。我不愿意在辩论中偏袒任何一方(双方都有很好的论据!)，但相当多的专家认为，事后看来，受控例外是一个错误的决定。

对于一些讨论，请查看维基百科网站的“已检查异常的价值可疑”。另一个早期广泛争论的例子是Rod Waldhoff的博客文章。

当你想要向调用者提供信息时，受控异常对于可恢复的情况很有用(例如，权限不足，文件未找到等)。

未检查异常很少用于在运行时通知用户或程序员严重错误或意外情况。如果你编写的代码或库将被其他人使用，不要抛出这些异常，因为他们可能不希望你的软件抛出未经检查的异常，因为编译器不会强制捕获或声明这些异常。