以下是我在多年开发经验后的一些看法:

Checked exception. This is a part of business use case or call flow, this is a part of application logic we expect or not expect. For example connection rejected, condition is not satisfied etc. We need to handle it and show corresponding message to user with instructions what happened and what to do next (try again later etc). I usually call it post-processing exception or "user" exception. Unchecked exception. This is a part of programming exception, some mistake in software code programming (bug, defect) and reflects a way how programmers must use API as per documentation. If an external lib/framework doc says it expects to get data in some range and non null, because NPE or IllegalArgumentException will be thrown, programmer should expect it and use API correctly as per documentation. Otherwise the exception will be thrown. I usually call it pre-processing exception or "validation" exception.

目标受众。现在让我们来谈谈目标受众或设计例外的人群(根据我的观点):

检查异常。目标受众是用户/客户。 未经检查的异常。目标受众是开发人员。换句话说，未检查异常仅是为开发人员设计的。

通过应用程序开发生命周期阶段。

受控异常被设计为在整个生产生命周期中存在，作为应用程序处理异常情况的正常和预期机制。 未检查异常被设计为只存在于应用程序开发/测试生命周期期间，所有这些异常都应该在这段时间内得到修复，并且当应用程序已经在生产环境中运行时不应该抛出。

框架通常使用未检查异常(例如Spring)的原因是框架不能确定应用程序的业务逻辑，这取决于开发人员捕捉并设计自己的逻辑。

我们必须根据是否是程序员错误来区分这两种类型的异常。

If an error is a programmer error, it must be an Unchecked Exception. For example: SQLException/IOException/NullPointerException. These exceptions are programming errors. They should be handled by programmer. While in JDBC API, SQLException is Checked Exception, In Spring JDBCTemplate it is an Unchecked Exception.Programmer doesn't worry about SqlException, when use Spring. If an error is not a programmer error and the reason is coming from external, it must be a Checked Exception. For example: if the file is deleted or file permission is changed by someone else, It should be recovered.

FileNotFoundException是理解细微差别的好例子。在找不到文件的情况下抛出FileNotFoundException。这种例外有两个原因。如果文件路径是由开发人员定义的或通过GUI从最终用户获取的，那么它应该是一个未检查的异常。如果文件被其他人删除，它应该是一个Checked Exception。

检查异常可以用两种方式处理。它们使用try-catch或传播异常。在异常传播的情况下，由于异常处理，调用堆栈中的所有方法都将紧密耦合。这就是为什么我们必须小心地使用已检查异常。

如果您开发了一个分层的企业系统，您必须选择大多数未检查的异常来抛出，但不要忘记在您什么都做不了的情况下使用已检查的异常。

检查例外: 如果客户端可以从异常中恢复，并希望继续，请使用受控异常。

未经检查的异常: 如果客户端在异常发生后不能做任何事情，则引发未检查的异常。

示例:如果您希望在方法a()中执行算术操作，并且基于a()的输出，则必须执行另一个操作。如果方法A()的输出为空，而您在运行时并不期望它，那么您将抛出空指针异常，即运行时异常。

请参考这里

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。

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;
}

You can call it a checked or unchecked exception; however, both types of exception can be caught by the programmer, so the best answer is: write all of your exceptions as unchecked and document them. That way the developer who uses your API can choose whether he or she wants to catch that exception and do something. Checked exceptions are a complete waste of everyone's time and it makes your code a shocking nightmare to look at. Proper unit testing will then bring up any exceptions that you may have to catch and do something with.