Related
From reading revision N3242 of the c++11 draft, it appears that some components of the standard library's interfaces (notably threading and locking) depend on exception handling.
Since I do a lot of work with exceptions disabled, I am wondering which library components/features will be (practically or logically) unusable without exception handling enabled?
First of all (just as a reminder), disabling exceptions and RTTI are compiler specific extensions the Standard has no consideration for.
Since the Standard Library is usually tied to the compiler, it may be that your implementation of the Standard Library has been specifically designed to cope with this (and in particular, to cope with new returning null pointers instead of raising std::bad_alloc).
Therefore, what you ask for is non-sensical. Check the documentation of your own library for a complete list.
That being said, the Standard does guarantee that a number of operations will never throw. I don't know of any operation that swallows exceptions, I would suppose that most of them are actually safe to use as-is.
For example, all algorithms should be safe.
Still, once again, I can only recommend reading the documentation of your implementation.
This question is over one month old, and unanswered.
I am providing an answer which can be considered a community wiki, add to it as needed.
std::thread Section 30.2.2. Transitive. Abstraction implemented using native implementations.
std::mutex, std::recursive_mutex, std::timed_mutex, std::recursive_timed_mutex. Section 30.4.1, Intransitive if you supply your own exception free locking (via BasicLockable, Lockable, TimedLockable). Abstraction implemented using native implementations.
std::condition_variable Section 30.5. Transitive. Abstraction implemented using native implementations.
note: There will be more.
Ruby has "method_missing", Tcl has "unknown", and most highly dynamic languages have an equivalent construct that is invoked when an undefined method is called.
It makes perfect sense to add such functionality; something needs to happen, and there's no reason not to allow that something to be redefined by the programmer. It's rather trivial to add, and it makes for some neat "check what my language can do" demos.
Where is this behavior actually useful in real application code?
All I can think of is:
Maybe useful for starting a debugger without unwinding the stack (but I'm not sure if that would count as "regular application code", and an exception would work just as well in most cases).
For "magical" proxy objects.. ie a lazy object that gets created or loaded on first use without changing the interface (though this seems pretty easy to do by other means).
Are there other legitimate uses?
Clarification: I don't really consider "syntactical sugar to avoid having to type quotes" to be a legitimate use. Others might, I do not.
Implementing a dynamic Web Service client
http://mpathirage.com/the-importance-of-rubys-method-missing-concept/
Adding better debug information on
failure,
encoding parameters in method name
Builders, Accessors, Proxy
delegation
http://olabini.com/blog/2010/04/patterns-of-method-missing/
Why doesn't F# naturally support a try/with/finally block?
Doesn't it make sense to try something, deal with whatever exception it throws, at least to log the exception, and then be sure that some code executes after all that?
Sure, we can do
try
try
...
with ex -> ...
finally
...
But that seems too artificial, it clearly demonstrates that "F# is against try/with/finally". Why is that?
As somebody already mentioned, you would usually use try-with-finally to make sure that you properly release all resources in case of an exception. I think in most of the cases you can do this more easily using the use keyword:
let input =
try
use stream = new FileStream("C:\temp\test.txt");
use rdr = new StreamReader(stream);
Some(rdr.ReadToEnd())
with :? IOException as e ->
logError(e)
None
I think this is mostly the reason why you don't need try-with-finally as often as you would in other languages. But of course, there are some situations where you may need it (but you could of course avoid that by creating instance of IDisposable using object expressions (which is syntactically very easy). But I think this is so rare that the F# team doesn't really need to worry about this.
Orthogonality? You can simply nest a try-with inside a try-finally, as you show. (This is what happens at the IL level anyway, I think.)
That said, try-with-finally is something that we may consider in a future version of the language.
Personally I have only run into wanting it a couple times, but when you do need it, it is a little bothersome to have to do the extra nesting/indent. In general I find that I rarely write exception handling code, and it's usually just one or the other (e.g. a finally to restore an invariant or other transactional semantics, or a 'catch' near the top of an app to log an exception or show the user diagnostics).
But I don't think there's a lot to 'read in to' regarding the language design here.
Without going into great detail because the great details are in
[Expert .NET 2.0 IL Assembler] 01 by Serge Lidin
See: Ch. 14, Managed Exception Handling
"The finally and fault handlers cannot peacefully coexist with other handlers, so if a guarded block has a finally or fault handler, it cannot have anything else. To combine a finally or fault handler with other handlers, you need to nest the guarded and handler bocks within other guarded blocks, ..., so that each finally or fault handler has its own personal guarded block."
pg. 300
A try/catch uses a fault handler and a try/finally uses a finally handler.
See: ILGenerator.BeginFaultBlock Method
If you emit a fault handler in an exception block that also contains a
catch handler or a finally handler, the resulting code is
unverifiable.
So, all of the .net languages could be consider to be using syntactic sugar and since F# is so new, they just haven't implemented it yet. No harm no foul.
But that seems too artificial, it clearly demonstrates that "F# is against try/with/finally". Why is that?
I guess F# might be "against" exception-handling at all. For the sake of .NET interoperability, it has to support them, but basically, there is no exception-handling* in functional programming.
Throwing/Catching exceptions means performing "jumps to nowhere" that aren't even noticed by the type system which is both fundamentally against the functional philosophy.
You can use purely functional (monadic) code to wrap exceptions. All errors are handled through values, in terms of the underlying type system and free of jumps/side effects.
Instead of writing a function
let readNumber() : int = ...
that may throw arbitrary exceptions, you'll simply state
let readNumber() : int option = ...
which makes this point automatically clear by its type signature.
*This doesn't mean we don't handle exceptional situations, it's just about the kind of exception-handling in .NET/C++.
I will clarify my comment in this answer.
I maintain there is no reason to assume that you want to catch exceptions and finalize some resources at the same level. Perhaps you got used to do it that way in a language in which it was convenient to handle both at the same time, but it's a coincidence when it happens. The finalization is convenient when you do not catch all exceptions from the inner block. try...with is for catching exceptions so that the computation can continue normally. There simply is no relationship between the two (if anything, they go in opposite directions: are you catching the exception, or letting it go through?).
Why do you have to finalize anything at all? Shouldn't the GC be managing unreferenced resources for you? Ah... but the language is trying to give you access to system primitives which work with side-effects, with explicit allocations and de-allocations. You have to de-allocate what you have allocated (in all cases)... Shouldn't you be blaming the rotten interface that the system is providing instead of F#, which is only the messenger in this case?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
It's my understanding that common wisdom says to only use exceptions for truly exceptional conditions (In fact, I've seen that statement here at SO several times).
However, Krzysztof Cwalina says:
One of the biggest misconceptions about exceptions is that they are for “exceptional conditions.” The reality is that they are for communicating error conditions. From a framework design perspective, there is no such thing as an “exceptional condition”. Whether a condition is exceptional or not depends on the context of usage, --- but reusable libraries rarely know how they will be used. For example, OutOfMemoryException might be exceptional for a simple data entry application; it’s not so exceptional for applications doing their own memory management (e.g. SQL server). In other words, one man’s exceptional condition is another man’s chronic condition.
He then also goes on to say that exceptions should be used for:
Usage errors
Program errors
System failures
Considering Krzysztof Cwalina is the PM for the CLR team at MS I ask: What do you think of his statement?
This sounds over-simplistic, but I think it makes sense to simply use exceptions where they are appropriate. In languages like Java and Python, exceptions are very common, especially in certain situations. Exceptions are appropriate for the type of error you want to bubble up through a code path and force the developer to explicitly catch. In my own coding, I consider the right time to add an exception when the error either can't be ignored, or it's simply more elegant to throw an exception instead of returning an error value to a function call etc.
Some of the most appropriate places for exceptions that I can think of offhand:
NotImplementedException - very appropriate way of designating that a particular
method or function isn't available, rather than simply returning without doing
anything.
OutOfMemory exceptions - it's difficult to imagine a better way of handling this
type of error, since it represents a process-wide or OS-wide memory allocation
failure. This is essential to deal with, of course!
NullPointerException - Accessing a null variable is a programmer mistake, and IMO
this is another good place to force an error to bubble to the surface
ArrayIndexException - In an unforgiving language like C, buffer overflows
are disastrous. Nicer languages might return a null value of some type, or in
some implementations, even wrap around the array. In my opinion, throwing an
exception is a much more elegant response.
This is by no means a comprehensive list, but hopefully it illustrates the point. Use exceptions where they are elegant and logical. As always with programming, the right tool for the right job is good advice. There's no point going exception-crazy for nothing, but it's equally unwise to completely ignore a powerful and elegant tool at your disposal.
For people who write frameworks, perhaps it's interesting.
For the rest of us, it's confusing (and possibly useless.) For ordinary applications, exceptions have to be set aside as "exceptional" situations. Exceptions interrupt the ordinary sequential presentation of your program.
You should be circumspect about breaking the ordinary top-to-bottom sequential processing of your program. The exception handling is -- intentionally -- hard to read. Therefore, reserve exceptions for things that are outside the standard scenarios.
Example: Don't use exceptions to validate user input. People make input mistakes all the time. That's not exceptional, that's why we write software. That's what if-statements are for.
When your application gets an OutOfMemory exception, there's no point in catching it. That's exceptional. The "sequential execution" assumption is out the window. Your application is doomed, just crash and hope that your RDBMS transaction finishes before you crash.
It is indeed difficult to know what exactly construes an "exceptional condition" which warrants the use of an exception in a program.
One instance that is very helpful for using communicating the cause of errors. As the quote from Krzysztof Cwalina mentions:
One of the biggest misconceptions
about exceptions is that they are for
“exceptional conditions.” The reality
is that they are for communicating
error conditions.
To give a concrete example, say we have a getHeader(File f) method that is reading some header from a file and returns a FileHeader object.
There can be several problems which can arise from trying to read data from a disk. Perhaps the file specified doesn't exist, file contains data that can't be read, unexpected disk access errors, running out of memory, etc. Having multiple means of failure means that there should be multiple ways to report what went wrong.
If exceptions weren't used, but there was a need to communicate the kind of error that occurred, with the current method signature, the best we can do is to return a null. Since getting a null isn't very informative, the best communication we get from that result is that "some kind of error happened, so we couldn't continue, sorry." -- It doesn't communicate the cause of the error.
(Or alternatively, we may have class constants for FileHeader objects which indicate FileNotFound conditions and such, emulating error codes, but that really reeks of having a boolean type with TRUE, FALSE, FILE_NOT_FOUND.)
If we had gotten a FileNotFound or DeviceNotReady exception (hypothetical), at least we know what the source of the error was, and if this was an end user application, we could handle the error in ways to solve the problem.
Using the exception mechanism gives a means of communication that doesn't require a fallback to using error codes for notification of conditions that aren't within the normal flow of execution.
However, that doesn't mean that everything should be handled by exceptions. As pointed out by S.Lott:
Don't use exceptions to validate user
input, for example. People make
mistakes all the time. That's what
if-statements are for.
That's one thing that can't be stressed enough. One of the dangers of not knowing when exactly to use exceptions is the tendency to go exception-happy; using exceptions where input validation would suffice.
There's really no point in defining and throwing a InvalidUserInput exception when all that is required to deal in such a situation is to notify the user of what is expected as input.
Also, it should be noted that user input is expected to have faulty input at some point. It's a defensive measure to validate input before handing off input from the outside world to the internals of the program.
It's a little bit difficult to decide what is exceptional and what is not.
Since I usually program in Python, and in that language exceptions are everywhere, to me an exception may represent anything from a system error to a completely legitimate condition.
For example, the "pythonic" way to check if a string contains an integer is to try int(theString) and see if it raises an exception. Is that an "exceptional error"?
Again, in Python the for loop is always thought of as acting on an iterator, and an iterator must raise a 'StopIteration' exception when it finishes its job (the for loop catches that exception). Is that "exceptional" by any means?
I think the closer to the ground are you are the less appropriate exceptions as a means of error communication become. At a higher abstraction such as in Java or .net, an exception may make for an elegant way to pass error messages to your callers. This however is not the case in C. This is also a framework vs api design decision.
If you practice "tell, don't ask" then an exception is just the way a program says "I can't do that". It is "exceptional" in that you say "do X" and it cannot do X. A simple error-handling situation. In some languages it is quite common to work this way, in Java and C++ people have other opinions because exceptions become quite costly.
General: exception just means "I can't"
Pragmatic: ... if you can afford to work that way in your language.
Citizenship: ... and your team allows it.
Here is the definition for exception: An exception is an event, which occurs during the execution of a program, that disrupts the normal flow of the program's instructions.
Therefore, to answer your question, no. Exceptions are for disruptive events, which may or may not be exceptional. I love this definition, it's simple and works every time - if you buy into exceptions like I do. E.g., a user submits an incorrect un/pw, or you have an illegal argument/bad user input. Throwing an exception here is the most straightforward way of solving these problems, which are disruptive, but not exceptional, nor even unanticipated.
They probably should have been called disruptions, but that boat has sailed.
I think there are a couple of good reasons why exceptions should be used to catch unexpected problems.
Firstly, they create an object to encapsulate the exception, which by definition must make it a lot more expensive than processing a simple if-statement. As a Java example, you should call File.exists() rather than routinely expecting and handling a FileNotFoundException.
Secondly, exceptions that are caught outside the current method (or maybe even class) make the code much harder to read than if the handling is all there in in the one method.
Having said that, I personally love exceptions. They relieve you of the need of explicitly handling all of those may-happen-but-probably-never-will type errors, which cause you to repetitively write print-an-error-and-abort-on-non-zero-return-code handling of every method call.
My bottom line is... if you can reasonably expect it to happen then it's part of your application and you should code for it. Anything else is an exception.
I've been wondering about this myself. What do we mean by "exceptional"? Maybe there's no strict definition, but are there any rules of thumb that we can use to decide what's exceptional, in a given context?
For example, would it be fair to say that an "exceptional" condition is one that violates the contract of a function?
KCwalina has a point.
It will be good to identify cases where the code will fail (upto a limit)
I agree with S.Lott that sometimes validating is better than to throw Exception.
Having said that, OutOfMemory is not what you might expect in your application (unless it is allocating a large memory & needs memory to go ahead).
I think, it depends on the domain of the application.
The statement from Krzysztof Cwalina is a little misleading. The original statement refers 'exceptional conditions', for me it is natural that I am the one who defines what's exceptional or not. Nevertheless, I think the message passed through OK, since I think we are all talking about 'developer' exceptions.
Exceptions are great for communication, but with a little hierarchy design they are also great for some separation of concerns, specially between layers (DAO, Business, etc). Of course, this is only useful if you treat these exceptions differently.
A nice example of hierarchy is spring's data access exception hierarchy.
I think he is right. Take a look at number parsing in java. You cant even check input string before parsing. You are forced to parse and retrieve NFE if something went wrong. Is parse failure something exceptional? I think no.
I certainly believe exceptions should be used only if you have an exceptional condition.
The trouble is in the definition of "exceptional". Here is mine:
A condition is exceptional if it is outside the assumed normal
behaviour of the part of the system that raises the exception.
This has some implications:
Exceptional depends on your assumptions. If a function assumes that it is passed valid parameters, then throwing an IllegalArgumentException is OK. However if a function's contract says that it will correct input errors in input in some way, then this usage is "normal" and it shouldn't throw an exception on an input error.
Exceptional depends on sub-system layering. A network IO function could certainly raise an exception if the network is discommented, as it assumes a valid connection. A ESB-based message broker however would be expected to handle dropped connections, so if it used such a network IO function internally then it would need to catch and handle the error appropriately. In case it isn't obvious, try/catch is effectively equivalent to a subsystem saying "a condition which is exceptional for one of my components is actually considered normal by me, so I need to handle it".
The saying that exceptions should be used for exceptional circumstances is used in "Effective Java Second Edition": one of the best java books.
The trouble is that this is taken out of context. When the author states that exceptions should be exceptional, he had just shown an example of using exceptions to terminate a while loop - a bad exception use. To quote:
exceptions are, as their name implies, to
be used only for exceptional conditions; they should never be used for ordinary
control flow.
So it all depends on your definition of "exception condition". Taken out of context you can imply that it should very rarely be used.
Using exceptions in place of returning error codes is good, while using them in order to implement a "clever" or "faster" technique is not good. That's usually what is meant by "exceptional condition".
Checked exception - minor errors that aren't bugs and shouldn't halt execution. ex. IO or file parsing
Unchecked exception - programming "bug" that disobeys a method contract - ex. OutOfBoundsException. OR a error that makes continuing of execution a very bad idea - ex IO or file parsing of a very important file. Perhaps a config file.
What it comes down to is what tool is needed to do the job.
Exceptions are a very powerful tool. Before using them ask if you need this power and the complexity that comes with it.
Exceptions may appear simple, because you know that when the line with the exception is hit everything comes to a halt. What happens from here though?
Will an uncaught exception occur?
Will the exception be caught by global error handling?
Will the exception be handled by more nested and detailed error handling?
You have to know everything up the stack to know what that exception will do. This violates the concept of independence. That method now is dependent on error handling to do what you expect it to.
If I have a method I shouldn't care what is outside of that method. I should only care what the input is, how to process it, and how to return the response.
When you use an exception you are essentially saying, I don't care what happens from here, something went wrong and I don't want it getting any worse, do whatever needs to be done to mitigate the issue.
Now if you care about how to handle the error, you will do some more thinking and build that into the interface of the method e.g. if you are attempting to find some object possibly return the default of that object if one can't be found rather than throwing some exception like "Object not found".
When you build error handling into your methods interface, not only is that method's signature more descriptive of what it can do, but it places the responsibility of how to handle the error on the caller of the method. The caller method may be able to work through it or not, and it would report again up the chain if not. Eventually you will reach the application's entry point. Now it would be appropriate to throw an exception, since you better have a good understanding of how exceptions will be handled if you're working with the applications public interface.
Let me give you an example of my error handling for a web service.
Level 1. Global error handling in global.asax - That's the safety net to prevent uncaught exceptions. This should never intentionally be reached.
Level 2. Web service method - Wrapped in a try/catch to guarantee it will always comply with its json interface.
Level 3. Worker methods - These get data, process it, and return it raw to the web service method.
In the worker methods it's not right to throw an exception. Yes I have nested web service method error handling, but that method can be used in other places where this may not exist.
Instead if a worker method is used to get a record and the record can't be found, it just returns null. The web service method checks the response and when it finds null it knows it can't continue. The web service method knows it has error handling to return json so throwing an exception will just return the details in json of what happened. From a client's perspective it's great that it got packaged into json that can be easily parsed.
You see each piece just knows what it needs to do and does it. When you throw an exception in the mix you hijack the applications flow. Not only does this lead to hard to follow code, but the response to abusing exceptions is the try/catch. Now you are more likely to abuse another very powerful tool.
All too often I see a try/catch catching everything in the middle of an a application, because the developer got scared a method they use is more complex than it appears.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
Google's Go language has no exceptions as a design choice, and Linus of Linux fame has called exceptions crap. Why?
Exceptions make it really easy to write code where an exception being thrown will break invariants and leave objects in an inconsistent state. They essentially force you to remember that most every statement you make can potentially throw, and handle that correctly. Doing so can be tricky and counter-intuitive.
Consider something like this as a simple example:
class Frobber
{
int m_NumberOfFrobs;
FrobManager m_FrobManager;
public:
void Frob()
{
m_NumberOfFrobs++;
m_FrobManager.HandleFrob(new FrobObject());
}
};
Assuming the FrobManager will delete the FrobObject, this looks OK, right? Or maybe not... Imagine then if either FrobManager::HandleFrob() or operator new throws an exception. In this example, the increment of m_NumberOfFrobs does not get rolled back. Thus, anyone using this instance of Frobber is going to have a possibly corrupted object.
This example may seem stupid (ok, I had to stretch myself a bit to construct one :-)), but, the takeaway is that if a programmer isn't constantly thinking of exceptions, and making sure that every permutation of state gets rolled back whenever there are throws, you get into trouble this way.
As an example, you can think of it like you think of mutexes. Inside a critical section, you rely on several statements to make sure that data structures are not corrupted and that other threads can't see your intermediate values. If any one of those statements just randomly doesn't run, you end up in a world of pain. Now take away locks and concurrency, and think about each method like that. Think of each method as a transaction of permutations on object state, if you will. At the start of your method call, the object should be clean state, and at the end there should also be a clean state. In between, variable foo may be inconsistent with bar, but your code will eventually rectify that. What exceptions mean is that any one of your statements can interrupt you at any time. The onus is on you in each individual method to get it right and roll back when that happens, or order your operations so throws don't effect object state. If you get it wrong (and it's easy to make this kind of mistake), then the caller ends up seeing your intermediate values.
Methods like RAII, which C++ programmers love to mention as the ultimate solution to this problem, go a long way to protect against this. But they aren't a silver bullet. It will make sure you release resources on a throw, but doesn't free you from having to think about corruption of object state and callers seeing intermediate values. So, for a lot of people, it's easier to say, by fiat of coding style, no exceptions. If you restrict the kind of code you write, it's harder to introduce these bugs. If you don't, it's fairly easy to make a mistake.
Entire books have been written about exception safe coding in C++. Lots of experts have gotten it wrong. If it's really that complex and has so many nuances, maybe that's a good sign that you need to ignore that feature. :-)
The reason for Go not having exceptions is explained in the Go language design FAQ:
Exceptions are a similar story. A
number of designs for exceptions have
been proposed but each adds
significant complexity to the language
and run-time. By their very nature,
exceptions span functions and perhaps
even goroutines; they have
wide-ranging implications. There is
also concern about the effect they
would have on the libraries. They are,
by definition, exceptional yet
experience with other languages that
support them show they have profound
effect on library and interface
specification. It would be nice to
find a design that allows them to be
truly exceptional without encouraging
common errors to turn into special
control flow that requires every
programmer to compensate.
Like generics, exceptions remain an
open issue.
In other words, they haven't yet figured out how to support exceptions in Go in a way that they think is satisfactory. They are not saying that Exceptions are bad per se;
UPDATE - May 2012
The Go designers have now climbed down off the fence. Their FAQ now says this:
We believe that coupling exceptions to a control structure, as in the try-catch-finally idiom, results in convoluted code. It also tends to encourage programmers to label too many ordinary errors, such as failing to open a file, as exceptional.
Go takes a different approach. For plain error handling, Go's multi-value returns make it easy to report an error without overloading the return value. A canonical error type, coupled with Go's other features, makes error handling pleasant but quite different from that in other languages.
Go also has a couple of built-in functions to signal and recover from truly exceptional conditions. The recovery mechanism is executed only as part of a function's state being torn down after an error, which is sufficient to handle catastrophe but requires no extra control structures and, when used well, can result in clean error-handling code.
See the Defer, Panic, and Recover article for details.
So the short answer is that they can do it differently using multi-value return. (And they do have a form of exception handling anyway.)
... and Linus of Linux fame has called exceptions crap.
If you want to know why Linus thinks exceptions are crap, the best thing is to look for his writings on the topic. The only thing I've tracked down so far is this quote that is embedded in a couple of emails on C++:
"The whole C++ exception handling thing is fundamentally broken. It's especially broken for kernels."
You'll note that he's talking about C++ exceptions in particular, and not exceptions in general. (And C++ exceptions do apparently have some issues that make them tricky to use correctly.)
My conclusion is that Linus hasn't called exceptions (in general) "crap" at all!
Exceptions are not bad per se, but if you know they are going to happen a lot, they can be expensive in terms of performance.
The rule of thumb is that exceptions should flag exceptional conditions, and that you should not use them for control of program flow.
I disagree with "only throw exceptions in an exceptional situation." While generally true, it's misleading. Exceptions are for error conditions (execution failures).
Regardless of the language you use, pick up a copy of Framework Design Guidelines: Conventions, Idioms, and Patterns for Reusable .NET Libraries (2nd Edition). The chapter on exception throwing is without peer. Some quotes from the first edition (the 2nd's at my work):
DO NOT return error codes.
Error codes can be easily ignored, and often are.
Exceptions are the primary means of reporting errors in frameworks.
A good rule of thumb is that if a method does not do what its name suggests, it should be considered a method-level failure, resulting in an exception.
DO NOT use exceptions for the normal flow of control, if possible.
There are pages of notes on the benefits of exceptions (API consistency, choice of location of error handling code, improved robustness, etc.) There's a section on performance that includes several patterns (Tester-Doer, Try-Parse).
Exceptions and exception handling are not bad. Like any other feature, they can be misused.
From the perspective of golang, I guess not having exception handling keeps the compiling process simple and safe.
From the perspective of Linus, I understand that kernel code is ALL about corner cases. So it makes sense to refuse exceptions.
Exceptions make sense in code were it's okay to drop the current task on the floor, and where common case code has more importance than error handling. But they require code generation from the compiler.
For example, they are fine in most high-level, user-facing code, such as web and desktop application code.
Exceptions in and of themselves are not "bad", it's the way that exceptions are sometimes handled that tends to be bad. There are several guidelines that can be applied when handling exceptions to help alleviate some of these issues. Some of these include (but are surely not limited to):
Do not use exceptions to control program flow - i.e. do not rely on "catch" statements to change the flow of logic. Not only does this tend to hide various details around the logic, it can lead to poor performance.
Do not throw exceptions from within a function when a returned "status" would make more sense - only throw exceptions in an exceptional situation. Creating exceptions is an expensive, performance-intensive operation. For example, if you call a method to open a file and that file does not exist, throw a "FileNotFound" exception. If you call a method that determines whether a customer account exists, return a boolean value, do not return a "CustomerNotFound" exception.
When determining whether or not to handle an exception, do not use a "try...catch" clause unless you can do something useful with the exception. If you are not able to handle the exception, you should just let it bubble up the call stack. Otherwise, exceptions may get "swallowed" by the handler and the details will get lost (unless you rethrow the exception).
Typical arguments are that there's no way to tell what exceptions will come out of a particular piece of code (depending on language) and that they are too much like gotos, making it difficult to mentally trace execution.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2003/10/13.html
There is definitely no consensus on this issue. I would say that from the point of view of a hard-core C programmer like Linus, exceptions are definitely a bad idea. A typical Java programmer is in a vastly different situation, though.
Exceptions aren't bad. They fit in well with C++'s RAII model, which is the most elegant thing about C++. If you have a bunch of code already that's not exception safe, then they're bad in that context. If you're writing really low level software, like the linux OS, then they're bad. If you like littering your code with a bunch of error return checks, then they not helpful. If you don't have a plan for resource control when an exception is thrown (that C++ destructors provides) then they're bad.
A great use-case for exceptions is thus....
Say you are on a project and every controller (around 20 different major ones) extends a single superclass controller with an action method. Then every controller does a bunch of stuff different from each other calling objects B, C, D in one case and F, G, D in another case. Exceptions come to the rescue here in many cases where there was tons of return code and EVERY controller was handling it differently. I whacked all that code, threw the proper exception from "D", caught it in the superclass controller action method and now all our controllers are consistent. Previously D was returning null for MULTIPLE different error cases that we want to tell the end-user about but couldn't and I didn't want to turn the StreamResponse into a nasty ErrorOrStreamResponse object (mixing a data structure with errors in my opinion is a bad smell and I see lots of code return a "Stream" or other type of entity with error info embedded in it(it should really be the function returns the success structure OR the error structure which I can do with exceptions vs. return codes)....though the C# way of multiple responses is something I might consider sometimes though in many cases, the exception can skip a whole lot of layers(layers that I don't need to clean up resources on either).
yes, we have to worry about each level and any resource cleanup/leaks but in general none of our controllers had any resources to clean up after.
thank god we had exceptions or I would have been in for a huge refactor and wasted too much time on something that should be a simple programming problem.
Theoretically they are really bad. In perfect mathematical world you cannot get exception situations. Look at the functional languages, they have no side effects, so they virtually do not have source for unexceptional situations.
But, reality is another story. We always have situations that are "unexpected". This is why we need exceptions.
I think we can think of exceptions as of syntax sugar for ExceptionSituationObserver. You just get notifications of exceptions. Nothing more.
With Go, I think they will introduce something that will deal with "unexpected" situations. I can guess that they will try to make it sound less destructive as exceptions and more as application logic. But this is just my guess.
The exception-handling paradigm of C++, which forms a partial basis for that of Java, and in turn .net, introduces some good concepts, but also has some severe limitations. One of the key design intentions of exception handling is to allow methods to ensure that they will either satisfy their post-conditions or throw an exception, and also ensure that any cleanup which needs to happen before a method can exit, will happen. Unfortunately, the exception-handling paradigms of C++, Java, and .net all fail to provide any good means of handling the situation where unexpected factors prevent the expected cleanup from being performed. This in turn means that one must either risk having everything come to a screeching halt if something unexpected happens (the C++ approach to handling an exception occurs during stack unwinding), accept the possibility that a condition which cannot be resolved due to a problem that occurred during stack-unwinding cleanup will be mistaken for one which can be resolved (and could have been, had the cleanup succeeded), or accept the possibility that an unresolvable problem whose stack-unwinding cleanup triggers an exception that would typically be resolvable, might go unnoticed as code which handles the latter problem declares it "resolved".
Even if exception handling would generally be good, it's not unreasonable to regard as unacceptable an exception-handling paradigm that fails to provide a good means for handling problems that occur when cleaning up after other problems. That isn't to say that a framework couldn't be designed with an exception-handling paradigm that could ensure sensible behavior even in multiple-failure scenarios, but none of the top languages or frameworks can as yet do so.
I havent read all of the other answers, so this ma yhave already been mentioned, but one criticism is that they cause programs to break in long chains, making it difficult to track down errors when debugging the code. For example, if Foo() calls Bar() which calls Wah() which calls ToString() then accidentily pushing the wrong data into ToString() ends up looking like an error in Foo(), an almost completely unrelated function.
For me the issue is very simple. Many programmers use exception handler inappropriately. More language resource is better. Be capable to handle exceptions is good. One example of bad use is a value that must be integer not be verified, or another input that may divide and not be checked for division of zero... exception handling may be an easy way to avoid more work and hard thinking, the programmer may want to do a dirty shortcut and apply an exception handling... The statement: "a professional code NEVER fails" might be illusory, if some of the issues processed by the algorithm are uncertain by its own nature. Perhaps in the unknown situations by nature is good come into play the exception handler. Good programming practices are a matter of debate.
Exception not being handled is generally bad.
Exception handled badly is bad (of course).
The 'goodness/badness' of exception handling depends on the context/scope and the appropriateness, and not for the sake of doing it.
Okay, boring answer here. I guess it depends on the language really. Where an exception can leave allocated resources behind, they should be avoided. In scripting languages they just desert or overjump parts of the application flow. That's dislikable in itself, yet escaping near-fatal errors with exceptions is an acceptable idea.
For error-signaling I generally prefer error signals. All depends on the API, use case and severity, or if logging suffices. Also I'm trying to redefine the behaviour and throw Phonebooks() instead. The idea being that "Exceptions" are often dead ends, but a "Phonebook" contains helpful information on error recovery or alternative execution routes. (Not found a good use case yet, but keep trying.)