5 ms·

> Semantically if you are wrapping an error it means you that you are purposely shifting the responsibility and declaring that your function is responsible for

> Semantically if you are wrapping an error it means you that you are purposely shifting the responsibility and declaring that your function is responsible for the failure. I don't understand what this means. If you wrap an exception and throw it, how has your function become responsible for the failure? > If errors are not checked, they never bother with sensible error handling. My most robust desktop application has a single exception handler at the event loop that puts the exception message in a messagebox. Try and save your file to a network location that doesn't exist anymore? Click OK and try again. > To me, whether a language has checked errors or not is just feature of the tool You didn't address the criticism that checked exceptions are fundamentally incompatible with other features such as higher order functions and polymorphism. It's an experiment that has ultimately failed in practice.

kaba0 2y ago
> I don't understand what this means. If you wrap an exception and throw it, how has your function become responsible for the failure? That’s a declaration that this specific kind of problem (say, an IOException) can be handled as this other, higher-level exception (say, of type MyApplicationException, that when bubbles up, will display a friendly error dialog to the user, and logs the underlying IOException for the devs). > checked exceptions are fundamentally incompatible with [..] higher order functions and polymorphism They aren’t. Look into languages with algebraic effects.
- wvenable 2y ago
  Maybe I know how to handle IOException but not MyApplicationException but the method only gives me the latter. There is effectively no handling MyApplicationException so why even force the declaration. Either way most exceptions cannot be handled in any meaningful way anyway so checked exceptions are pointless busywork. > They aren’t. Look into languages with algebraic effects. Can you give me more to go on than that?

kaba0 2y ago

> I don't understand what this means. If you wrap an exception and throw it, how has your function become responsible for the failure? That’s a declaration that this specific kind of problem (say, an IOException) can be handled as this other, higher-level exception (say, of type MyApplicationException, that when bubbles up, will display a friendly error dialog to the user, and logs the underlying IOException for the devs). > checked exceptions are fundamentally incompatible with [..] higher order functions and polymorphism They aren’t. Look into languages with algebraic effects.

wvenable 2y ago
Maybe I know how to handle IOException but not MyApplicationException but the method only gives me the latter. There is effectively no handling MyApplicationException so why even force the declaration. Either way most exceptions cannot be handled in any meaningful way anyway so checked exceptions are pointless busywork. > They aren’t. Look into languages with algebraic effects. Can you give me more to go on than that?