The Industry choice

[Roy Smith]

In article <cr99pd$rff$1 at panix3.panix.com>, aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) 
wrote:

> In article <xuTBd.66280$Jk5.42292 at lakeread01>,
> Steve Holden  <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote:
> >Aahz wrote:
> >> In article <7xacrs230c.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
> >> Paul Rubin  <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked exceptions when I first used
> >>>them but have been coming around about them.  There's just been too
> >>>many times when I wrote something in Python that crashed because some
> >>>lower-level function raised an exception that the upper level hadn't
> >>>been expecting, after the program had been in use for a while.  I'd
> >>>sure rather find out about that at compile time.
> >> 
> >> That's funny -- Bruce Eckel talks about how he used to love checked
> >> exceptions but has come to regard them as the horror that they are.
> >> I've learned to just write "throws Exception" at the declaration of
> >> every method.
> >
> >Pretty sloppy, though, no? And surely the important thing is to have a 
> >broad handler, not a broad specification of raisable exceptions?
> 
> Yes, it's sloppy, but I Don't Care.  I'm trying to write usable code
> while learning a damnably under-documented Java library -- and I'm *not*
> a Java programmer in the first place, so I'm also fighting with the Java
> environment.  Eventually I'll add in some better code.

The whole point of exceptions is that they get propagated automatically.  
If I'm not going to catch it, why do I have to even know it exists?  I 
don't consider "throws Exception" to be sloppy, I consider it to be 
programmers voting with their feet.