I don't think you are listening. He gave you the links, read them. On Jul 28, 1:29 am, Doug <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 27, 6:35 pm, Nikolay Elenkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Doug <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 27, 1:25 am, Nikolay Elenkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Doug <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I see checked exceptions as a compile-time reminder that it's always a > > > good idea to handle potential errors. This is almost exactly the same > > > concept as diligently checking the return codes from C functions that > > > can fail. I suppose if you are the kind of engineer that doesn't make > > > a priority of checking return codes, then you probably also don't like > > > Java forcing you to do something with potential error conditions. > > > You are making too many assumptions, but have fun with it. > > I actually write all of my C code in a giant main() function and > > I never ever check return codes. I am that good. I pass around > > NULL pointers like crazy, but it's OK, because I'm a lucky guy. > > Satisfied? > > No, I'm not, because you're not using logic to address to issue at > hand. > > > > If you are that kind of engineer (and I would argue that you are not > > > actually an "engineer"), then don't use Java. > > > Java is old. And because it's 'enterprise', it won't change much. > > Checked exceptions is not the only problem with it. So yes, > > when possible, I use more modern alternatives. > > Go on. I'm listening. Please don't just say "do your own research" > or "smart people write about this". > > > >> The whole point is, that with checked exceptions you are forced to > > >> handle or re-throw/declare them even if you don't what to do that > > >> *in that particular part* of your code. Nobody is saying 'we will > > >> ignore all exceptions and keep our fingers crossed'. > > > > Truthfully, how often do you really NEED to ignore checked > > > exceptions? It does come up, but not enough for me to get upset that > > > I have to do it. For me, it's a few extra lines of code in a few > > > places. > > > Again, I never said ignore. I said 'don't handle in that particular place'. > > A few extra lines of code multiplied by a hundred places makes for > > a lot code bloat. Don't you just love it when you have to handle > > IOException when calling close()? > > Please answer my question above. How often? In my experience (16 > years) it's not common enough to complain about. There are cases, > yes, but only on shutdown/termination. I don't obsess on those > cases. I do them one and be done with it. It takes at most 1 minute > out of my day. If you can't spare that 1 minute, then don't use Java. > > > We can go on forever, but there's not much point. Have fun with > > your exceptions. > > Please make a case for your alternative. I'm listening. Please make > it relevant to Android development, considering the forum in which > we're participating. If you have an axe to grind against Java as a > language, I suggest you do it elsewhere. > > Doug
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
