I'm not talking about handling the error, I'm talking about boilerplate. In order to get the program to even crash on error, I had to handle 4 different kinds o

I'm not talking about handling the error, I'm talking about boilerplate. In order to get the program to even crash on error, I had to handle 4 different kinds of exceptions. I'm as much a fan of expciciteness as anyone, but there's a difference between explicit and verbose. And there's a lot to be said for constructs that don't force you to indent your code every time you call a function. My goal wasn't to write correct code, it was to test something out. To get comfortable with the library and the task. Checked exceptions get in the way of that. >Languages that take correctness seriously should offer you both options. Rust and Haskell take correctness seriously and offer neither. Checked exceptions make perfect sense in terms of ensuring correctness, but they are awful for usability and they are not the only way to achieve correctness. >Some exceptions should crash your program (runtime exceptions), others should be handled (checked exceptions). Shouldn't the user determine that, not the implementor? Why should any exceptions not be checked?