| > The question was, why checked exceptions saw no love. A big part of the answer is that the stdlib did a very poor job showcasing them. Fair enough. I can see that interpretation. I was more focused on their first sentence, which said: "On top of all the other problems pointed out, java's checked exceptions don't even do a good job of indicating possible failure conditions." Then it felt like they were backing that claim by citing a specific example that's just a poor use of the feature. > No wonder, it was an attempt to graft an FP-esque feature onto a deeply imperative OOP language, with a development team aligned with OOP concepts. That's an interesting take that I hadn't really heard before or considered myself. I had assumed that it came from some frustration around C++ exceptions and not knowing what was supposed to be handled vs not. But, in any case, I do agree that the feature ended up rejected by the larger programming community largely because of Java's specific implementation of it. Though, I have to say that I think it might have ended up rejected even if Java did a perfect job of it in the standard library. The truth is that most programmers don't seem to understand the intended design of the feature and feel like there's a binary choice between using checked exceptions or unchecked exceptions. The Oracle documentation does a very good job, IMO, of explaining the feature, how it's intended to be used, and how do decide whether to use an unchecked exception or a checked one. But, I don't think most people actually read manuals/books to learn programming languages anymore. |