安全性与您的示例混为一谈:您不应该告诉攻击者用户名存在，但密码是错误的。这是你不需要分享的额外信息。只要说“用户名或密码不正确”。

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。

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 .

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.

以下是我的建议:

我不认为这总是一个抛出异常的好方法，因为它将花费更多的时间和内存来处理这样的异常。

在我看来，如果某些事情可以用“友好、礼貌”的方式处理(这意味着如果我们可以“通过使用if......或类似的东西来预测这样的错误)，我们应该避免使用“异常”，而只是返回一个像“false”这样的标志，用一个外部参数值告诉他/她详细的原因。

举个例子，我们可以这样创建一个类:

public class ValueReturnWithInfo<T>
{
   public T Value{get;private set;}
   public string errorMsg{get;private set;}
   public ValueReturnWithInfo(T value,string errmsg)
   {
      Value = value;
      errMsg = errmsg;
   }
}

我们可以使用这种“多值返回”类来代替错误，这似乎是处理异常问题的一种更好、更礼貌的方式。

但是，请注意，如果一些错误不能如此容易地用"if"......(例如FileIO异常)描述(这取决于您的编程经验)，则必须抛出异常。

If it's code running inside a loop that will likely cause an exception over and over again, then throwing exceptions is not a good thing, because they are pretty slow for large N. But there is nothing wrong with throwing custom exceptions if the performance is not an issue. Just make sure that you have a base exception that they all inherite, called BaseException or something like that. BaseException inherits System.Exception, but all of your exceptions inherit BaseException. You can even have a tree of Exception types to group similar types, but this may or may not be overkill.

因此，简短的回答是，如果它不会导致显著的性能损失(除非抛出大量异常，否则不应该如此)，那么就继续执行。