运行时异常: 运行时异常被称为未检查的异常。所有其他例外 是受控异常，并且它们不是派生自java.lang.RuntimeException。

检查异常: 必须在代码中的某个地方捕获受控异常。如果您调用 方法，该方法引发已检查异常，但您没有捕获该已检查异常 在某些地方，您的代码将无法编译。这就是为什么他们被称为检查 异常:编译器检查以确保它们被处理或声明。

Java API中的许多方法都会抛出检查过的异常，因此您将经常编写异常处理程序来处理由您没有编写的方法生成的异常。

关于未检查异常和已检查异常之间的区别，我最喜欢的描述来自Java教程的试用文章“未检查异常-争议”(很抱歉在这篇文章中介绍了所有基本的内容-但是，嘿，基本的有时是最好的):

这是底线原则:如果客户可以合理地 希望从异常中恢复，使其成为受控异常。如果 客户端不能做任何事情来从异常中恢复 未经检查的异常

“抛出哪种类型的异常”的核心是语义的(在某种程度上)，上面的引用提供了一个很好的指导方针(因此，我仍然被c#摆脱受控异常的概念所震撼——特别是Liskov认为它们有用)。

接下来的问题就变得合乎逻辑了:编译器希望我显式地响应哪些异常?你希望客户能从中恢复过来。

我只是想添加一些根本不使用受控异常的理由。这不是一个完整的答案，但我觉得它确实回答了你的部分问题，并补充了许多其他的答案。

Whenever checked exceptions are involved, there's a throws CheckedException somewhere in a method signature (CheckedException could be any checked exception). A signature does NOT throw an Exception, throwing Exceptions is an aspect of implementation. Interfaces, method signatures, parent classes, all these things should NOT depend on their implementations. The usage of checked Exceptions here (actually the fact that you have to declare the throws in the method signature) is binding your higher-level interfaces with your implementations of these interfaces.

让我给你们看一个例子。

让我们有一个像这样漂亮干净的界面

public interface IFoo {
    public void foo();
}

现在我们可以编写方法foo()的许多实现，就像这样

public class Foo implements IFoo {
    @Override
    public void foo() {
        System.out.println("I don't throw and exception");
    }
}

类Foo完全没问题。现在让我们第一次尝试Bar类

public class Bar implements IFoo {
    @Override
    public void foo() {
        //I'm using InterruptedExcepton because you probably heard about it somewhere. It's a checked exception. Any checked exception will work the same.
        throw new InterruptedException();
    }
}

这个类Bar不能编译。由于InterruptedException是一个已检查异常，您必须捕获它(在方法foo()中使用try-catch)或声明您正在抛出它(在方法签名中添加抛出InterruptedException)。因为我不想在这里捕获这个异常(我希望它向上传播，这样我就可以在其他地方正确地处理它)，让我们改变签名。

public class Bar implements IFoo {
    @Override
    public void foo() throws InterruptedException {
        throw new InterruptedException();
    }
}

这个类Bar也不能编译!Bar的方法foo()不会覆盖IFoo的方法foo()，因为它们的签名不同。我可以删除@Override注释，但我想编程接口IFoo像IFoo foo;然后再决定使用哪个实现，比如foo = new Bar();如果Bar的方法foo()没有覆盖IFoo的方法foo，当我执行foo.foo();它不会调用Bar的foo()实现。

To make Bar's public void foo() throws InterruptedException override IFoo's public void foo() I MUST add throws InterruptedException to IFoo's method signature. This, however, will cause problems with my Foo class, since it's foo() method's signature differs from IFoo's method signature. Furthermore, if I added throws InterruptedException to Foo's method foo() I would get another error stating that Foo's method foo() declares that it throws an InterruptedException yet it never throws an InterruptedException.

正如您所看到的(如果我在解释这些东西方面做得不错的话)，抛出InterruptedException这样的检查异常的事实迫使我将我的接口IFoo绑定到它的一个实现上，这反过来又会对IFoo的其他实现造成严重破坏!

这就是受控异常很糟糕的一个重要原因。在帽。

一种解决方案是捕获已检查异常，将其包装在未检查的异常中，然后抛出未检查的异常。

检查异常:

The exceptions which are checked by the compiler for smooth execution of the program at runtime are called Checked Exception. These occur at compile time. If these are not handled properly, they will give compile time error (Not Exception). All subclasses of Exception class except RuntimeException are Checked Exception. Hypothetical Example - Suppose you are leaving your house for the exam, but if you check whether you took your Hall Ticket at home(compile time) then there won't be any problem at Exam Hall(runtime).

未检查异常:

The exceptions which are not checked by the compiler are called Unchecked Exceptions. These occur at runtime. If these exceptions are not handled properly, they don’t give compile time error. But the program will be terminated prematurely at runtime. All subclasses of RunTimeException and Error are unchecked exceptions. Hypothetical Example - Suppose you are in your exam hall but somehow your school had a fire accident (means at runtime) where you can't do anything at that time but precautions can be made before (compile time).

需要指出的是，如果在代码中抛出一个受控异常，而catch在上面几层，则需要在您和catch之间的每个方法的签名中声明异常。因此，封装被破坏了，因为抛出路径中的所有函数都必须知道该异常的详细信息。

许多人说检查异常(即你应该显式地捕获或重新抛出的异常)根本不应该使用。例如，它们在c#中被淘汰了，大多数语言都没有它们。因此，您总是可以抛出RuntimeException的子类(未检查的异常)

然而，我认为受控异常是有用的——当你想强迫API的用户思考如何处理异常情况(如果它是可恢复的)时，就使用它们。只是受控异常在Java平台中被过度使用了，这让人们讨厌它们。

以下是我对这个话题的扩展观点。

关于具体问题:

Is the NumberFormatException consider a checked exception? No. NumberFormatException is unchecked (= is subclass of RuntimeException). Why? I don't know. (but there should have been a method isValidInteger(..)) Is RuntimeException an unchecked exception? Yes, exactly. What should I do here? It depends on where this code is and what you want to happen. If it is in the UI layer - catch it and show a warning; if it's in the service layer - don't catch it at all - let it bubble. Just don't swallow the exception. If an exception occurs in most of the cases you should choose one of these: log it and return rethrow it (declare it to be thrown by the method) construct a new exception by passing the current one in constructor Now, couldn't the above code also be a checked exception? I can try to recover the situation like this? Can I? It could've been. But nothing stops you from catching the unchecked exception as well Why do people add class Exception in the throws clause? Most often because people are lazy to consider what to catch and what to rethrow. Throwing Exception is a bad practice and should be avoided.

遗憾的是，没有单一的规则可以让您决定何时捕获、何时重新抛出、何时使用已检查异常和何时使用未检查异常。我同意这会导致很多混乱和很多糟糕的代码。布洛赫阐述了总体原则(你引用了其中的一部分)。一般的原则是将异常重新抛出到可以处理它的层。