[teacup50]

The only failed language experiment are exceptions themselves.

I don't use Java APIs that don't throw checked exceptions; if your code does that, I won't even consider working at your place of business, because that means you don't understand that you've written a massive pile of ill-defined failure-prone code.

Unchecked exceptions are GOTO on steroids, and those GOTOs are part of the API contract. Java makes exception handling explicit and compiler checked -- hacking around checked exceptions makes exception handling implicit and human-checked, meaning that there's absolutely no static verification of a critical component of your API contract.

The problem isn't checked exceptions, the problem is that exceptions suck, and the only way to use them in a way that doesn't expose your code base to implicit GOTO failure modes is to use checked exceptions.

On our production software, we don't use exceptions at all, except where required by an API; instead, we always use monadic error handling. We have an uncaught exception handler for threads/thread pools/etc that does one thing: log the exception, and terminate the running Java process via System.exit(), allowing the process's watchdog to restart the failed process.

By its very nature, an uncaught exception is unexpected and places the process in an unknown state; the only safe thing to do is exit. Since the throwing of an uncaught exception triggers full process failure, it very much encourages defensive, safe practices that ensure that all error cases are handled and compiler-checked.

The result: our code is far more stable and reliable than any other project I've worked on, especially projects that have made use of runtime exceptions.

[pohl]

I won't even consider working at your place of business...

Praise be! The feeling is mutual. I agree to disagree.

[teacup50]

Unfortunately, you'll lower the total value of the ecosystem by producing code and advocating practices that lower the level of reliability and correctness of code -- so agreeing to disagree doesn't really solve the issue that you write bad code.

[pohl]

So you're saying that it's not possible to write reliable and correct code in a language like C#, and not one C# programmer in the world is worthy of being a colleague to the great teacup50. That's the logical conclusion of your assertions, for all of its exceptions are unchecked, and it is otherwise semantically similar. If it's possible to write reliable and correct code in C#, then it's possible to write reliable and correct code in Java minus checked exceptions.

As far as APIs are concerned, the important thing is that the API is documented to throw something. It's not at all important that the compiler forces you to pollute either the immediate method's body or its signature and the body of the calling method, etc.

[teacup50]

No, I'm saying it's not possible to write reliable and correct code in C# using exceptions without also doing all the heavy lifting of the compiler. You can also write reliable and correct code in dynamically typed languages, which involves doing even more work on behalf of the compiler.

This is not unique to C#; if you review coding standards for C++, you'll see plenty of people who have adopted a no-exceptions approach, Google included. Simply put, exceptions are a failed experiment, because checked exceptions are the only mechanism by which the type of your methods is fully defined.

As far as API documentation, that something gets thrown is part of the return signature, and it's no more pollution than expressing the return type is.

Your willingness to employ ambiguity as a means to avoid having to do the work necessary to fully specify your system's behavior is a lazy and logically flawed position; it creates a cognitive load for all consumers of your APIs, and breaks the utility of the compiler that we rely on to write and maintain reliable software more easily.

[pohl]

Excuse me, but what exactly is it that you think you know about how I write code?

[teacup50]

You rely on human validation of your code's return type values via unchecked exceptions, and don't understand why your code is resultantly ambiguously defined.