3 ms·

So because you can't think of an alternative, there should be no way of handling a scenario where, say, maybe that port is already in use? Again, the explicitn

So because you can't think of an alternative, there should be no way of handling a scenario where, say, maybe that port is already in use? Again, the explicitness is by design. My "handle" code would be checking the failure and acting on it: trying another port, logging a message, sending an email telling me my server isn't starting. I doubt the existence of a real world app that really fires up an HTTP server and blindly dies without so much as logging to indicate failure.

masklinn 14y ago
> So because you can't think of an alternative, there should be no way of handling a scenario And more strawmanning, great. Of course there is a way to handle failure: catch the bloody exception. Which is completely unlike what the original code does, hence your original comment being a (not very original) strawman.