4 ms·

It often leads people to write code like this: try { // do stuff } catch (TheCheckedException ex) { // ignore it } then the code c

It often leads people to write code like this: try { // do stuff } catch (TheCheckedException ex) { // ignore it } then the code continues even though it could be in a bad state if an exception did occur. It's a much better solution to let it propagate up the call stack until it can be dealt with appropriately (e.g. by ending the application, giving a 503 error on a web page request, etc.) Unchecked exceptions will propagate up the call stack by default if you don't do anything, making it harder for people to write bad exception handling code.

Sandman 15y ago
So add a 'throws' clause to the method in which you call the code that throws the checked exception and it will propagate upward.
- samuel 15y ago
  ...or rethrow it as an unchecked exception(RuntimeException).
- brlewis 15y ago
  Yes, this! The most irritating debugging I've had to do in Java code is when someone catches an exception, but fails to handle it effectively, resulting in another exception being thrown later. If you don't know how to handle it effectively, just add the 'throws' clause. It's less typing than try/catch, so I don't understand why people choose to make extra work for themselves and for me. I see a lot of comments here that seem to assume catching the exception is the only option.
  - davedx 15y ago
    Exactly. In Eclipse it's so ridiculously easy to make the method pass it on by adding the throw to your method. I find checked exceptions really useful every day :)
johnyzee 15y ago
I like checked exceptions because you can't not deal with the error condition. Swallowed exceptions is a code smell that any half-decent developer will notice, whereas failing to check for some return value is much more subtle. Java allows you to have both, since you can design your exceptions as unchecked, or rethrow a checked exception wrapped in a runtime exception.
noselasd 15y ago
Well, just use runtime exceptions for your own code. (Though, they'll hardly ever change the exceptions in the base libraries to runtime exceptions)

Sandman 15y ago

So add a 'throws' clause to the method in which you call the code that throws the checked exception and it will propagate upward.

samuel 15y ago
...or rethrow it as an unchecked exception(RuntimeException).
brlewis 15y ago
Yes, this! The most irritating debugging I've had to do in Java code is when someone catches an exception, but fails to handle it effectively, resulting in another exception being thrown later. If you don't know how to handle it effectively, just add the 'throws' clause. It's less typing than try/catch, so I don't understand why people choose to make extra work for themselves and for me. I see a lot of comments here that seem to assume catching the exception is the only option.
- davedx 15y ago
  Exactly. In Eclipse it's so ridiculously easy to make the method pass it on by adding the throw to your method. I find checked exceptions really useful every day :)

johnyzee 15y ago

I like checked exceptions because you can't not deal with the error condition. Swallowed exceptions is a code smell that any half-decent developer will notice, whereas failing to check for some return value is much more subtle. Java allows you to have both, since you can design your exceptions as unchecked, or rethrow a checked exception wrapped in a runtime exception.

noselasd 15y ago

Well, just use runtime exceptions for your own code. (Though, they'll hardly ever change the exceptions in the base libraries to runtime exceptions)