[touisteur]

To be a bit fair, checked exceptions in java also have their 'bypass' system, since Errors are not checked. So you can't be sure whether someone will decide to throw an error in the middle of library code. You still have to catch-all. I'm not saying it's better.

I haven't seen a way to do exceptions better than fully-checked exceptions, but you have to be ready to have buffer/integer over/underflow exceptions everywhere or have a fine prover for the absence or runtime erroes to 'allow' you not to have them in your signature.

Otherwise having discriminated records (or option types if you prefer) for return and error-handling seems more down to earth, if a bit painful to write.

[lenkite]

Frankly, I love Java's checked and un-checked exceptions differentiation even if the standard library is confused about it.

Make logical exceptions (depending on purpose of interface) into checked-exceptions. Make system exceptions into un-checked exceptions. Document in javadoc with `@throws`

A higher level module can wrap and re-throw into the appropriate exception if needed.

Error handling can be done in the desired place instead of scattered across the code.

[kaba0]

Yeah, I also believe that Java is the closest to the best error handling I am aware of. Unfortunately though, it is inheritance based which is a bummer here. It would be perfect with sum types though.