3 ms·

Well, this example seems somewhat contrived to me because these errors are not the errors happening in the compiler, they are diagnostic messages describing the

• jstimpfle 8y ago
  "An error happening in the compiler". What's that? If you mean a bug detected, then it should be handled with abort().
  • gdy 8y ago
    An error related to the file system, for example.
    • jstimpfle 8y ago
      A file system error isn't an error happening in the compiler. The file system is an external system. So this error isn't really any different than a syntax error or type error. I would not treat it differently except making a different error message. Of course you cannot parse a file you cannot read, so there is a dependency which means that sooner or later you need to "act" on the error.
      • gdy 8y ago
        Well, grouping errors in your example makes sense when all of them happened during processing a particular input which is expected to be invalid sometimes. Could you share another example where accumulating errors makes sense?
        • jstimpfle 8y ago
          You can do it with anything. Analyze all the files in a directory, for instance. Do all the IO in parallel and merge the results at a central point. Some files might be corrupt or whatever. Merge the results at a central point. Only then present them to the user in a sensible order. A real life example: Asynchronous webservers usually have worker threads for I/O. I/O errors need to be routed to the originators of the I/O requests (which are in other threads). Exceptions cannot do that. Here's the general point: Whether any given thing is an "Error" is highly subjective and context dependent. But clearly the error is data, so why take away the possibility to process it like any other data?
          • gdy 8y ago
            This is an interesting conversation for me, but I still don't quite understand your reasoning. IMO, using exceptions doesn't preclude treating errors as data. In your example with parallel processing, you could throw an error as exception, let it unwind the whole stack, catch it and return as the result of the task. This way you don't couple the code that does the useful work with the code that handles errors. In other words, I don't understand why you dislike exceptions. IMO they are a good tool for any task that doesn't require different actions to handle different errors.
            • jstimpfle 8y ago
              Exceptions are not just data, at least not if you do not always catch them immediately (in which case they are just pointless). They introduce additional control paths which are hard to reason about. In many languages these are not even explicit. Exceptions require an additional syntax to handle them. And having exceptions requires significant language infrastructure and comes with a huge toll on the structure of software projects. See my topmost comment. > In your example with parallel processing, you could throw an error as exception, let it unwind the whole stack, catch it and return as the result of the task. Which would catch only the first encountered error per thread. And not catch all the other errors that we could encounter and report after that.
              • gdy 8y ago
                Well, if you don't have exceptions, stack unwinding, RAII, you've got to manually code the same sort of logic using repetitive code. Or you would have to change your design to minimise the pain of hand-coding stack unwinding, most likely paying a price for that in form of damaging other aspects of design. In other words, NOT having exceptions, IMO, results in having to write a huge amount of code accomplishing a trivial task - aborting some unit of functionality upon unexpected error. "And not catch all the other errors" I think, in most cases after an unexpected error happens it doesn't make sense to continue the task and report more errors, most likely induced by the first error. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of cases when returning errors as values is the best fit and using the exceptions would be a disaster, but my point is that, IMO, the situation when errors abort tasks and are handled in more or less the same way is much more common.