2 ms·

It adds up surprisingly fast. I live mostly in the java world, and libraries throwing 3 or so required to catch exceptions are common. I'd agree that 90pct is

It adds up surprisingly fast. I live mostly in the java world, and libraries throwing 3 or so required to catch exceptions are common. I'd agree that 90pct is doable for your own algorithmic code. Glue code for libraries, commonly not very well thought out, requires a very different style. Defensive up to the paranoid, and catching every gremlin at the source. It's not uncommon to have more than half of the code dedocated to exception handling. Dumping said libraries is rarely an option, unfortunately. I'm not necesarily disagreeing with you, but maybe we live in different code worlds.

morelisp 6y ago
We definitely do, and I see how that might apply - I do write some Java but avoid as much as possible the disaster of checked exceptions. Mostly I am talking about Python, Go, TypeScript, and other more esoteric stuff. I don't agree that this defensive style is necessary though - I do (like everyone these days) write a ton of glue code, and that's as I described. Java is nearly as bad as JavaScript for language-cart-pulling-program-horse designs, it's just a different set of mistakes. It could be so much better if developers just did less.