| HN Mirror

> due to overhead

My understanding is that the old exception code called "SJLJ" (short for setjmp, longjmp, which is what it was) was slow. I think each try/catch required hooks, and yes, it was.

The newer compilers generate something called "DWARF"; resources on it are unfortunately scarce, but my understanding is that you don't pay anything in speed for an exception until you throw one. (You do however pay a bit of disk/memory for data about where try/catch handlers are, I think.)

> safety concerns (the semantics can become quite hairy when mixed with destructors)

I'm assuming that you shouldn't throw in a destructor.¹

This argument, to me, always needs more information attached to it, because by itself it's meaningless. Assuming the alternative is returning either the result, or an error code, you run into exactly the same semantic issues, you're just handling them manually now. Is that better, and how?

In the manual case. If I assume I have some code that returns to me an error code that I can't handle, I need to propagate that error up to a stack frame that can. Thus, I begin to manually unwind the stack, during which, I destruct things. If we're assuming destructors can throw², then I can potentially run into the problem of having two errors: now what do I do?

C++ isn't the only language here: C#, Python, and Java share the problem of "What do you do in the face of multiple exceptions requiring propagation up the stack?", though I think C++ is the only one that solves it by terminating the program. I believe C# and Python just drop the original exception, and I have no idea what Java does. Honestly, if things are that effed up, terminate doesn't sound that bad to me. In practice in C++, most destructors can't/don't throw. (Files are about the hairiest thing, since flushing a file to disk on close can fail: C++'s file classes will ignore failures there, which doesn't exactly sit well with me. You can always flush it manually before closing, but of course, if you do this during exception propagation and throw on failure, you risk termination due to two exceptions.)

Even C has this, in that if you're propagating an integer error code up the stack, and something goes wrong in a cleanup, you've got this problem. In C, you're forced to choose, of course, including the choice of "ignore the problem entirely".

That said, I'll add the answer for Rust here. (I've never used Rust, so correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going abstract away the Rust-specific types, however.) Rust, for a function returning T but that might fail, returns either Optional<T> or a Result<T>-ish object, which is basically (T or ErrorObject). Rust has strong typing, so if there's an error, you can't ignore it directly, because you can't get at the result. And if you try, it terminates the "task". Strong typing is the winner here. (This reminds me why I need to look into Rust.)

¹It's not illegal to do so, but since destructors get called while an exception unwinds the stack, you can potentially run into an exception causing an exception. Two exceptions in C++ result in a termination of the program.

²If we're not, then exceptions are perfectly safe.