[asddubs]

I'm fine with doing this on purpose, but without a system like checked exceptions, you do it without even really realizing you're doing it. Checked exceptions point out the errors and then let you decide whether it's something you should handle or let it crash. It makes for more stable software.

[wvenable]

The number of exceptional errors one can reasonably handle is so small to be insignificant. Aborting the current operation (which could be just one task or the whole application) is the most common result. Abort and log. Unchecked exceptions make that easy. Checked exceptions make that long and tedious and add nothing.

What and where you can handle exceptions has nothing to do with where the exception is thrown. Handlers only exist at key points in the application at the start of operations where you can skip, abort, or retry.

[code_runner]

its only an illusion of stability. so many things can go wrong outside of exceptions and all it does is add mandatory lines of code (probably rethrowing as a runtime exception) to every single consumer. It pollutes everything it touches.

[bottlepalm]

I didn't know Java apps were so much more stable than C# ones.