2 ms·

How is this an argument for silently failing being superior? It seems like static checked exception handling could solve this problem easily, the compiler can j

• AnimalMuppet 13y ago
  It's not an argument for silently failing being superior. It's a claim that too often, static checked exception handling gets subverted, and therefore doesn't work. Sooner or later, you have to trust the programmer to not be an idiot. If he/she is an idiot, the language can try to help, but can't really fix it. Static checked exceptions let the programmer know that there's something that needs to be handled. That's good. It can check that the programmer put a catch block somewhere, but it can't guarantee that the programmer did anything appropriate to handle the problem inside that block. It's better than nothing, but it's not enough. (And if you're going to ask what is enough, I have to reply: Nothing. If the programmer is determined to ignore the fact that there's an error to handle, the language can't fix things.)