首先，如果API的用户对特定的、细粒度的故障不感兴趣，那么为他们设置特定的异常就没有任何价值。

由于通常不可能知道什么可能对用户有用，一个更好的方法是有特定的异常，但确保它们继承自一个公共类(例如，std::exception或其在c++中的派生类)。这允许您的客户端捕获特定的异常(如果他们愿意的话)，或者捕获更一般的异常(如果他们不关心的话)。

抛出异常的经验法则非常简单。当你的代码进入UNRECOVERABLE INVALID状态时，你可以这样做。如果数据被泄露，或者您无法回溯到目前为止发生的处理，那么您必须终止它。你还能做什么呢?您的处理逻辑最终将在其他地方失败。如果你能以某种方式恢复，那么就这样做，不要抛出异常。

在你的特定情况下，如果你被迫做一些愚蠢的事情，比如接受提款，然后才检查用户/密码，你应该通过抛出一个异常来终止这个过程，通知发生了一些不好的事情，并防止进一步的损害。

异常类就像“正常”类。当一个新类“是”一个不同类型的对象，具有不同的字段和不同的操作时，您可以创建一个新类。

As a rule of thumb, you should try balance between the number of exceptions and the granularity of the exceptions. If your method throws more than 4-5 different exceptions, you can probably merge some of them into more "general" exceptions, (e.g. in your case "AuthenticationFailedException"), and using the exception message to detail what went wrong. Unless your code handles each of them differently, you needn't creates many exception classes. And if it does, may you should just return an enum with the error that occured. It's a bit cleaner this way.

我想说的是，如果发生了意想不到的行为，应该抛出异常。

比如试图更新或删除一个不存在的实体。它应该在异常可以处理并且有意义的地方被捕获。如果要以另一种方式继续工作，请在Api级别上添加日志记录或返回特定的结果。

如果您期望某些事情是这样的，那么您应该构建代码来检查并确保它是正确的。

我认为只有在无法摆脱当前状态时才应该抛出异常。例如，如果您正在分配内存，但没有任何内存可以分配。在您提到的情况下，您可以清楚地从这些状态中恢复，并相应地将错误代码返回给调用者。

You will see plenty of advice, including in answers to this question, that you should throw exceptions only in "exceptional" circumstances. That seems superficially reasonable, but is flawed advice, because it replaces one question ("when should I throw an exception") with another subjective question ("what is exceptional"). Instead, follow the advice of Herb Sutter (for C++, available in the Dr Dobbs article When and How to Use Exceptions, and also in his book with Andrei Alexandrescu, C++ Coding Standards): throw an exception if, and only if

没有满足先决条件(通常会出现以下情况之一 不可能的)或 替代方案将无法满足后置条件或 替代方案将无法保持不变式。

为什么这样更好呢?它不是用几个关于前置条件，后置条件和不变量的问题代替了这个问题吗?这是更好的几个相关的原因。

Preconditions, postconditions and invariants are design characteristics of our program (its internal API), whereas the decision to throw is an implementation detail. It forces us to bear in mind that we must consider the design and its implementation separately, and our job while implementing a method is to produce something that satisfies the design constraints. It forces us to think in terms of preconditions, postconditions and invariants, which are the only assumptions that callers of our method should make, and are expressed precisely, enabling loose coupling between the components of our program. That loose coupling then allows us to refactor the implementation, if necessary. The post-conditions and invariants are testable; it results in code that can be easily unit tested, because the post-conditions are predicates our unit-test code can check (assert). Thinking in terms of post-conditions naturally produces a design that has success as a post-condition, which is the natural style for using exceptions. The normal ("happy") execution path of your program is laid out linearly, with all the error handling code moved to the catch clauses.

for me Exception should be thrown when a required technical or business rule fails. for instance if a car entity is associated with array of 4 tires ... if one tire or more are null ... an exception should be Fired "NotEnoughTiresException" , cuz it can be caught at different level of the system and have a significant meaning through logging. besides if we just try to flow control the null and prevent the instanciation of the car . we might never never find the source of the problem , cuz the tire isn't supposed to be null in the first place .