[Mr_P]

For all the hate that Java tends to get, the language natively supports this distinction between:

* Expected errors - Checked Exceptions

* Unexpected errors - Unchecked Exceptions

Idiomatic Java also makes heavy use of asserts, e.g. using the Guava Preconditions library.

[goostavos]

Alas, the problem with java, which I say as a begrudging long time java developer, is that "supports this distinction" is a theoretical benefit that is seldom used in practice. Checked and unchecked exceptions get so thoroughly abused and twisted into byzantine contraptions that any distinction, if value were to be gained from it, is completely destroyed by the common free form usage throughout the ecosystem.

The precondition thing, while indeed common, drives me sorta insane. I think it's a pattern java folks need to move on from. You've got this lovely type system (used loosely). If you need a precondition because you've got some fundamental invariant in the system, doing it at runtime rather than encoding it into the type system is such a missed opportunity. If I try to do something inherently wrong, I don't want the code to even compile!

[yCombLinks]

What kind of precondition and what kind of example do you have for the typing? My primary precondition is null checks, which is unavoidable

[goostavos]

This blog post really captures the core of where null checking should go and how to capture that you've already vetted this field for correctness in the type system so that the rest of your code never has to worry about it -- and further, cannot because the types don't allow!: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...

This is echoed in an amazing book called Domain Design Made Functional, which radically changed how I thought about what a type system is and what it can actually do for us if we lean on it correctly (even a relatively crummy one like Java's!).

[josephcsible]

The problem is that while Java the language itself does support that distinction, a lot of built-in stuff really messes it up. For example, exceptions from closing a file are unexpected, but are an IOException which is checked anyway. Also, even the support that is in the language isn't first-class; e.g., lack of exception polymorphism.

[zmmmmm]

I think that's a symptom of the fact that the distinction is really artificial at the language level anyway. Whether something is expected or not is a function of the requirements. Even OutOfMemory can be expected and handled in certain types of applications (esp. since it gets thrown for things like file handles rather than true memory). And then there are all kinds of cases where routine exceptions like file not found are in fact, unexpected errors (as discussed in TFA).

Perhaps some sort of language level solution could have been found (eg: have explicit interfaces to mark exceptions as expected or unexpected and then exceptions are assigned that using generics or something), but that ship has sailed long ago.

[rowls66]

This is right, therefore, in most cases, a library should throw a checked exception, and the caller should decide whether it is an expected error and either handle it or rethrow it, or it is unexpected and rethrow a RuntimeException.

[shepherdjerred]

Unchecked vs Checked is one of the things I like least about Java. Programmers tend to make everything Unchecked because it leads to easier code for API users at the cost of correctness/error handling.

[jillesvangurp]

Modern Java, should not produce a lot of checked exceptions. Unfortunately, a large part of the standard library is 25 years old and still full of things that throw checked exceptions. If you use something like Spring or Quarkus, you'll not find a lot of those.

Kotlin improved on Java by treating all exceptions as unchecked. Including those from Java code. This was intentional and based on the observation that checked exceptions in Java were simply a mistake. Modern Java frameworks don't tend to use them for this reason. Kotlin fixed several other language design mistakes in Java and it's a reason it is used as a drop in replacement for Java in a lot of places. It also makes what guava and lombok do for Java completely redundant. All part of the language and standard library. Android, Spring, Quarkus, etc. they all become nicer to deal with when you swap out Java for Kotlin. I find dealing Java code to be very awkward these days. I used it for years and it just looks so ugly, clumsy, and verbose to me now.

The most common catch block in Java is e.printStackTrace() because that's what your IDE will insert. That's stupid code. And replacing it with a logger.error(e) is only marginally better. Idiomatic Java is actually re-throwing exceptions as RuntimeExceptions so your framework can handle them for you in a central place and show a nice not found page or bad request page (or the dreaded "we f*ked up" internal server error page). That too is stupid code to write and with Kotlin, re-throwing exceptions is not really a thing. Why would you? Either you handle the exception or it just bubbles up to a place where it is handled or not. If you want people to deal with exceptions, you wrap them with a a Result<T> in Kotlin. Java has a similar thing called an Optional but it is mostly just used to dodge null pointer exceptions; which in Kotlin are rare because it has nullable types. And of course it does not actually contain the original exception.

[yawaramin]

It's not clear to me that checked exceptions are actually a mistake, rather than just developers getting annoyed at their compiler forcing them to handle errors.

Just fyi, Scala predates Kotlin in not enforcing checked exceptions.

[ajanuary]

Checked exceptions require the implementation to distinguish between expected and unexpected errors. But as pointed out in the article, whether an error is expected or unexpected is more a function of the use case than the implementation.

[jahewson]

Expected errors that need to pass through a lambda - unchecked exceptions.

Our good friend UncheckedIOException.