|
That's a very cliche and unnaunced point of view. If you like thinking about your code, you have assembly, I think x86 is a very nice flavor for you, will all its 40+ years galore of special cases. There are Turing Machines, for really testosterone-heavy programmers, there you don't even have registers, registers are for weaklings, am I right ? I think you will like them very much, just an FSM and an infinite tape, the sky is your limit, so much thinking. If you want even more kickass bragging rights, you can program in a Lambda Calculus, where every single thing you try to do with the language will force you to think about it, more thinking ! yaaay ?. Generally speaking, yes, the entirety of good design (in general, in all walks of life) and modern PL research comes down to "don't make me think about how I code", because good programmers don't think about the code, they think about the problem the code is trying to solve. As per Alfred Whitehead (a mathematician, so very much a fan of thinking) : "Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.", so is programming language research. It advances by allowing you to forget as much as possible that you're even programming a computer, a good language fades into the background, ideally you're not even programming a good language, you're simply stating the problem to be solved. This is hampered by leaky and unreliable abstractions like Exceptions. They are a step backward in Error Handling, no static gaurantees, no static type checking, aweful synchronization between use sites. |
You demonstrate only that you have no understanding of exceptions and their use.
It is allowed not to understand things. All of us don't understand most things. Your mistake is in pontificating about what you wholly fail to grasp.