Related
I have always been of the belief that if a method can throw an exception then it is reckless not to protect this call with a meaningful try block.
I just posted 'You should ALWAYS wrap calls that can throw in try, catch blocks.' to this question and was told that it was 'remarkably bad advice' - I'd like to understand why.
A method should only catch an exception when it can handle it in some sensible way.
Otherwise, pass it on up, in the hope that a method higher up the call stack can make sense of it.
As others have noted, it is good practice to have an unhandled exception handler (with logging) at the highest level of the call stack to ensure that any fatal errors are logged.
As Mitch and others stated, you shouldn't catch an exception that you do not plan on handling in some way. You should consider how the application is going to systematically handle exceptions when you are designing it. This usually leads to having layers of error handling based on the abstractions - for example, you handle all SQL-related errors in your data access code so that the part of the application that is interacting with domain objects is not exposed to the fact that there is a DB under the hood somewhere.
There are a few related code smells that you definitely want to avoid in addition to the "catch everything everywhere" smell.
"catch, log, rethrow": if you want scoped based logging, then write a class that emits a log statement in its destructor when the stack is unrolling due to an exception (ala std::uncaught_exception()). All that you need to do is declare a logging instance in the scope that you are interested in and, voila, you have logging and no unnecessary try/catch logic.
"catch, throw translated": this usually points to an abstraction problem. Unless you are implementing a federated solution where you are translating several specific exceptions into one more generic one, you probably have an unnecessary layer of abstraction... and don't say that "I might need it tomorrow".
"catch, cleanup, rethrow": this is one of my pet-peeves. If you see a lot of this, then you should apply Resource Acquisition is Initialization techniques and place the cleanup portion in the destructor of a janitor object instance.
I consider code that is littered with try/catch blocks to be a good target for code review and refactoring. It indicates that either exception handling is not well understood or the code has become an amœba and is in serious need of refactoring.
Because the next question is "I've caught an exception, what do I do next?" What will you do? If you do nothing - that's error hiding and the program could "just not work" without any chance to find what happened. You need to understand what exactly you will do once you've caught the exception and only catch if you know.
You don't need to cover every block with try-catches because a try-catch can still catch unhandled exceptions thrown in functions further down the call stack. So rather than have every function have a try-catch, you can have one at the top level logic of your application. For example, there might be a SaveDocument() top-level routine, which calls many methods which call other methods etc. These sub-methods don't need their own try-catches, because if they throw, it's still caught by SaveDocument()'s catch.
This is nice for three reasons: it's handy because you have one single place to report an error: the SaveDocument() catch block(s). There's no need to repeat this throughout all the sub-methods, and it's what you want anyway: one single place to give the user a useful diagnostic about something that went wrong.
Two, the save is cancelled whenever an exception is thrown. With every sub-method try-catching, if an exception is thrown, you get in to that method's catch block, execution leaves the function, and it carries on through SaveDocument(). If something's already gone wrong you likely want to stop right there.
Three, all your sub-methods can assume every call succeeds. If a call failed, execution will jump to the catch block and the subsequent code is never executed. This can make your code much cleaner. For example, here's with error codes:
int ret = SaveFirstSection();
if (ret == FAILED)
{
/* some diagnostic */
return;
}
ret = SaveSecondSection();
if (ret == FAILED)
{
/* some diagnostic */
return;
}
ret = SaveThirdSection();
if (ret == FAILED)
{
/* some diagnostic */
return;
}
Here's how that might be written with exceptions:
// these throw if failed, caught in SaveDocument's catch
SaveFirstSection();
SaveSecondSection();
SaveThirdSection();
Now it's much clearer what is happening.
Note exception safe code can be trickier to write in other ways: you don't want to leak any memory if an exception is thrown. Make sure you know about RAII, STL containers, smart pointers, and other objects which free their resources in destructors, since objects are always destructed before exceptions.
Herb Sutter wrote about this problem here. For sure worth reading.
A teaser:
"Writing exception-safe code is fundamentally about writing 'try' and 'catch' in the correct places." Discuss.
Put bluntly, that statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of exception safety. Exceptions are just another form of error reporting, and we certainly know that writing error-safe code is not just about where to check return codes and handle error conditions.
Actually, it turns out that exception safety is rarely about writing 'try' and 'catch' -- and the more rarely the better. Also, never forget that exception safety affects a piece of code's design; it is never just an afterthought that can be retrofitted with a few extra catch statements as if for seasoning.
As stated in other answers, you should only catch an exception if you can do some sort of sensible error handling for it.
For example, in the question that spawned your question, the questioner asks whether it is safe to ignore exceptions for a lexical_cast from an integer to a string. Such a cast should never fail. If it did fail, something has gone terribly wrong in the program. What could you possibly do to recover in that situation? It's probably best to just let the program die, as it is in a state that can't be trusted. So not handling the exception may be the safest thing to do.
If you always handle exceptions immediately in the caller of a method that can throw an exception, then exceptions become useless, and you'd better use error codes.
The whole point of exceptions is that they need not be handled in every method in the call chain.
The best advice I've heard is that you should only ever catch exceptions at points where you can sensibly do something about the exceptional condition, and that "catch, log and release" is not a good strategy (if occasionally unavoidable in libraries).
I was given the "opportunity" to salvage several projects and executives replaced the entire dev team because the app had too many errors and the users were tired of the problems and run-around. These code bases all had centralized error handling at the app level like the top voted answer describes. If that answer is the best practice why didn't it work and allow the previous dev team to resolve issues? Perhaps sometimes it doesn't work? The answers above don't mention how long devs spend fixing single issues. If time to resolve issues is the key metric, instrumenting code with try..catch blocks is a better practice.
How did my team fix the problems without significantly changing the UI? Simple, every method was instrumented with try..catch blocked and everything was logged at the point of failure with the method name, method parameters values concatenated into a string passed in along with the error message, the error message, app name, date, and version. With this information developers can run analytics on the errors to identify the exception that occurs the most! Or the namespace with the highest number of errors. It can also validate that an error that occurs in a module is properly handled and not caused by multiple reasons.
Another pro benefit of this is developers can set one break-point in the error logging method and with one break-point and a single click of the "step out" debug button, they are in the method that failed with full access to the actual objects at the point of failure, conveniently available in the immediate window. It makes it very easy to debug and allows dragging execution back to the start of the method to duplicate the problem to find the exact line. Does centralized exception handling allow a developer to replicate an exception in 30 seconds? No.
The statement "A method should only catch an exception when it can handle it in some sensible way." This implies that developers can predict or will encounter every error that can happen prior to release. If this were true a top level, app exception handler wouldn't be needed and there would be no market for Elastic Search and logstash.
This approach also lets devs find and fix intermittent issues in production! Would you like to debug without a debugger in production? Or would you rather take calls and get emails from upset users? This allows you to fix issues before anyone else knows and without having to email, IM, or Slack with support as everything needed to fix the issue is right there. 95% of issues never need to be reproduced.
To work properly it needs to be combined with centralized logging that can capture the namespace/module, class name, method, inputs, and error message and store in a database so it can be aggregated to highlight which method fails the most so it can be fixed first.
Sometimes developers choose to throw exceptions up the stack from a catch block but this approach is 100 times slower than normal code that doesn't throw. Catch and release with logging is preferred.
This technique was used to quickly stabilize an app that failed every hour for most users in a Fortune 500 company developed by 12 Devs over 2 years. Using this 3000 different exceptions were identified, fixed, tested, and deployed in 4 months. This averages out to a fix every 15 minutes on average for 4 months.
I agree that it is not fun to type in everything needed to instrument the code and I prefer to not look at the repetitive code, but adding 4 lines of code to each method is worth it in the long run.
I agree with the basic direction of your question to handle as many exceptions as possible at the lowest level.
Some of the existing answer go like "You don't need to handle the exception. Someone else will do it up the stack." To my experience that is a bad excuse to not think about exception handling at the currently developed piece of code, making the exception handling the problem of someone else or later.
That problem grows dramatically in distributed development, where you may need to call a method implemented by a co-worker. And then you have to inspect a nested chain of method calls to find out why he/she is throwing some exception at you, which could have been handled much easier at the deepest nested method.
The advice my computer science professor gave me once was: "Use Try and Catch blocks only when it's not possible to handle the error using standard means."
As an example, he told us that if a program ran into some serious issue in a place where it's not possible to do something like:
int f()
{
// Do stuff
if (condition == false)
return -1;
return 0;
}
int condition = f();
if (f != 0)
{
// handle error
}
Then you should be using try, catch blocks. While you can use exceptions to handle this, it's generally not recommended because exceptions are expensive performance wise.
If you want to test the outcome of every function, use return codes.
The purpose of Exceptions is so that you can test outcomes LESS often. The idea is to separate exceptional (unusual, rarer) conditions out of your more ordinary code. This keeps the ordinary code cleaner and simpler - but still able to handle those exceptional conditions.
In well-designed code deeper functions might throw and higher functions might catch. But the key is that many functions "in between" will be free from the burden of handling exceptional conditions at all. They only have to be "exception safe", which does not mean they must catch.
I would like to add to this discussion that, since C++11, it does make a lot of sense, as long as every catch block rethrows the exception up until the point it can/should be handled. This way a backtrace can be generated. I therefore believe the previous opinions are in part outdated.
Use std::nested_exception and std::throw_with_nested
It is described on StackOverflow here and here how to achieve this.
Since you can do this with any derived exception class, you can add a lot of information to such a backtrace!
You may also take a look at my MWE on GitHub, where a backtrace would look something like this:
Library API: Exception caught in function 'api_function'
Backtrace:
~/Git/mwe-cpp-exception/src/detail/Library.cpp:17 : library_function failed
~/Git/mwe-cpp-exception/src/detail/Library.cpp:13 : could not open file "nonexistent.txt"
I feel compelled to add another answer although Mike Wheat's answer sums up the main points pretty well. I think of it like this. When you have methods that do multiple things you are multiplying the complexity, not adding it.
In other words, a method that is wrapped in a try catch has two possible outcomes. You have the non-exception outcome and the exception outcome. When you're dealing with a lot of methods this exponentially blows up beyond comprehension.
Exponentially because if each method branches in two different ways then every time you call another method you're squaring the previous number of potential outcomes. By the time you've called five methods you are up to 256 possible outcomes at a minimum. Compare this to not doing a try/catch in every single method and you only have one path to follow.
That's basically how I look at it. You might be tempted to argue that any type of branching does the same thing but try/catches are a special case because the state of the application basically becomes undefined.
So in short, try/catches make the code a lot harder to comprehend.
Besides the above advice, personally I use some try+catch+throw; for the following reason:
At boundary of different coder, I use try + catch + throw in the code written by myself, before the exception being thrown to the caller which is written by others, this gives me a chance to know some error condition occured in my code, and this place is much closer to the code which initially throw the exception, the closer, the easier to find the reason.
At the boundary of modules, although different module may be written my same person.
Learning + Debug purpose, in this case I use catch(...) in C++ and catch(Exception ex) in C#, for C++, the standard library does not throw too many exception, so this case is rare in C++. But common place in C#, C# has a huge library and an mature exception hierarchy, the C# library code throw tons of exception, in theory I(and you) should know every exceptions from the function you called, and know the reason/case why these exception being thrown, and know how to handle them(pass by or catch and handle it in-place)gracefully. Unfortunately in reality it's very hard to know everything about the potential exceptions before I write one line of code. So I catch all and let my code speak aloud by logging(in product environment)/assert dialog(in development environment) when any exception really occurs. By this way I add exception handling code progressively. I know it conflit with good advice but in reality it works for me and I don't know any better way for this problem.
You have no need to cover up every part of your code inside try-catch. The main use of the try-catch block is to error handling and got bugs/exceptions in your program. Some usage of try-catch -
You can use this block where you want to handle an exception or simply you can say that the block of written code may throw an exception.
If you want to dispose your objects immediately after their use, You can use try-catch block.
I see a lot of code written where an exception is thrown if a parameter is not in the right form, or whatever. Basically "throw new ...".
What is the benefit of this? The exception can be avoided by checking the parameters (Eg if null, write message back to webpage/winform). Why is this approach not used when an exception is expensive?
Thanks
A few points are worth making here:
First, your supposition that exceptions are expensive is generally untrue - exceptions are, well ... exceptional. They shouldn't be occurring often enough to have any meaningful effect on program performance. And if you are seeing enough exceptions that performance is a problem then you have bigger fish to fry.
Second, a well written class, function or module program should be able to detect and handle invalid input somewhat gracefully. It helps the maintainers and debuggers of the code locate the problems as close to their introduction as possible. If arguments are not checked, they can often result in a failure much later in the code - far removed from the actual error. Debugging such problems can be very painful.
Third, you assume that all code is aware of the context in which it is executed. A method may be deep in a framework or library and have no knowledge of whether it is running in a web application, console app, NT service, etc. Besides, it'a terrible practice to pepper logic to display information about invalid arguments throughout the body of your code - that responsibility should be centralized and controlled - otherwise you UI could easily become a mess of errors interspersed with actual presentation content.
Finally, exceptions allow a program to sometimes handle and recover from a problem rather than exposing it to the user. Don't diminish this capability by directly displaying errors immediately when they occur. Now, granted, most often invalid arguments are a symptom of a programming defect (rather than an environmental or configuration issue) - and so in most cases they can't be handled. But, then again, sometimes they can be handled.
For example, if you're writing a library to be used by code you don't know about or doesn't exist yet, how that error is handled is down to the code that is making the call.
So throwing an exception is a natural thing to do. Allows you to leave the decision on how to handle that error scenario to the caller/consumer.
Throwing an exception:
makes it clear to other programmers that the situation is exceptional
allows software calling the method involved to clearly handle the problem
shows tools and the compiler that the situation is exceptional so that they can assist the programmer
allows information to be passed to handling routines in the exception object itself
Printing strings - well - doesn't, really.
In terms of the 'expense' of an exception, exceptions should only be thrown in exceptional circumstances, i.e. rarely and as part of processing errors - I personally have not come across a situation where the 'expense' of an exception is a problem. More discussion on that point in this question.
This is known as Design by Contract.
The basic idea of Design by Contract is that objects have contracts between them, and if a caller does not fulfill the contract the receiver should fail with an exception rather than trying to guess the callers intention. At the end of the day, this leads to more stable software (in particular when more than one person is writing on project, since then the contract also become contracts between programmers).
PS: An important issue of Design by Contract that is often forgotten is the following. It must be possible for the client to know whether it fulfills the contract or not. So eg, if the contract of a stack is that client may only pop when the stack is not empty there must be an isEmpty method to check that and clients should use that method before calling pop. So this is why code that uses Design by Contract is cluttered with exceptions that are nevertheless never thrown.
It is better to throw an exception if the code will be compiled into a library and reused in multiple applications. In that case the client that calls into the library should handle the exceptions appropriately and report a user friendly message.
There are two main reasons I throw exceptions instead of writing an error message to standard out.
Debugging is easier - I know if the program has exited because of an error. Also, since exceptions in Java can be subclassed, I know exactly what type of error has occurred.
If you write an API, and then decide you want a GUI front-end, perhaps you want to take those exceptions and display them in a message dialog instead of writing them to standard out.
Generally and language-agnostically speaking, it is not correct assumption that exceptions are expensive. It depends on many factors.
Generally, exception is a generic way to signal an error condition and it is independent of any form of presentation. Sending out a page with error message would make the error reporting too tightly coupled with presentation, with UI. It is usually not a good idea in terms of flexible and scalable design.
The question is general and language-agnostic, thus the answer does not go deeply into details.
By the way, depending on a programming language, design of error handling, and number of other factors, approaches can be different. However, it's a good idea to learn about various options:
in C++, in Boost project, error handling guidelines say:
Don't worry too much about the what()
message. It's nice to have a message
that a programmer stands a chance of
figuring out, but you're very unlikely
to be able to compose a relevant and
user-comprehensible error message at
the point an exception is thrown (...)
Krzysztof Cwalina recommends a set of very useful Design Guidelines for .NET but they are in fact language-agnostic like Should Exceptions Carry Error Code Information
Given the guidelines above, after a while of consideration, it is not that clear what such error web page should display, what level of information, very technical or more user-friendly. Using exceptions, it gives more flexibility on various levels of the system as one of rules it catch when you need to handle (i.e. display error) ignore otherwise
Exceptions are, in most environments, easier to write tests for than is stuff written to the console:
it "should reject a negative initial balance" do
Account.new(-1).should raise_error(ArgumentError, "Invalid balance: -1")
end
I understand that "Exceptions are for exceptional cases" [a], but besides just being repeated over and over again, I've never found an actual reason for this fact.
Being that they halt execution, it makes sense that you wouldn't want them for plain conditional logic, but why not input validation?
Say you were to loop through a group of inputs and catch each exception to group them together for user notification... I continually see that this is somehow "wrong" because users enter incorrect input all the time, but that point seems to be based on semantics.
The input is Not what was expected and hence is exceptional. Throwing an exception allows me to define exactly what was wrong like StringValueTooLong or or IntegerValueTooLow or InvalidDateValue or whatever. Why is this considered wrong?
Alternatives to throwing an exception would be to either return (and eventually collect) an error code or far worse an error string. Then I would either show those error strings directly, or parse the error codes and then show corresponding error messages to the user. Wouldn't a exception be considered a malleable error code? Why create a separate table of error codes and messages, when these could be generalized with the exception functionality already built into my language?
Also, I found this article by Martin Fowler as to how to handle such things - the Notification pattern. I'm not sure how I see this as being anything other than Exceptions that don't halt execution.
a: Everywhere I've read anything about Exceptions.
--- Edit ---
Many great points have been made. I've commented on most and +'d the good points, but I'm not yet completely convinced.
I don't mean to advocate Exceptions as the proper means to resolve Input Validation, but I would like to find good reasons why the practice is considered so evil when it seems most alternate solutions are just Exceptions in disguise.
Reading these answers, I find it very unhelpful to say, "Exceptions should only be used for exceptional conditions". This begs the whole question of what is an "exceptional condition". This is a subjective term, the best definition of which is "any condition that your normal logic flow doesn't deal with". In other words, an exceptional condition is any condition you deal with using exceptions.
I'm fine with that as a definition, I don't know that we'll get any closer than that anyway. But you should know that that's the definition you are using.
If you are going to argue against exceptions in a certain case, you have to explain how to divide the universe of conditions into "exceptional" and "non-exceptional".
In some ways, it's similar to answering the question, "where are the boundaries between procedures?" The answer is, "Wherever you put the begin and end", and then we can talk about rules of thumb and different styles for determining where to put them. There are no hard and fast rules.
A user entering 'bad' input is not an exception: it's to be expected.
Exceptions should not be used for normal control flow.
In the past many authors have said that Exceptions are inherently expensive. Jon Skeet has blogged contrary to this (and mentioned a few time in answers here on SO), saying that they are not as expensive as reported (although I wouldn’t advocate using them in a tight loop!)
The biggest reason to use them is ‘statement of intent’ i.e. if you see an exception handling block you immediately see the exceptional cases which are dealt with outside of normal flow.
There is one important other reason than the ones mentioned already:
If you use exceptions only for exceptional cases you can run in your debugger with the debugger setting "stop when exception is thrown". This is extremely convenient because you drop into the debugger on the exact line that is causing the problem. Using this feature saves you a fair amount of time every day.
In C# this is possible (and I recommend it wholeheartedly), especially after they added the TryParse methods to all the number classes. In general, none of the standard libraries require or use "bad" exception handling. When I approach a C# codebase that has not been written to this standard, I always end up converting it to exception-free-for-regular cases, because the stop-om-throw is so valuable.
In the firebug javascript debugger you can also do this, provided that your libraries don't use exceptions badly.
When I program Java, this is not really possible because so many things uses exceptions for non-exceptional cases, including a lot of the standard java libraries. So this time-saving feature is not really available for use in java. I believe this is due to checked exceptions, but I won't start ranting about how they are evil.
Errors and Exceptions – What, When and Where?
Exceptions are intended to report errors, thereby making code more robust. To understand when to use exceptions, one must first understand what errors are and what is not an error.
A function is a unit of work, and failures should be viewed as errors or otherwise based on their impact on functions. Within a function f, a failure is an error if and only if it prevents f from meeting any of its callee’s preconditions, achieving any of f’s own postconditions, or reestablishing any invariant that f shares responsibility for maintaining.
There are three kinds of errors:
a condition that prevents the function from meeting a precondition (e.g., a parameter restriction) of another function that must be called;
a condition that prevents the function from establishing one of its own postconditions (e.g., producing a valid return value is a postcondition); and
a condition that prevents the function from re-establishing an invariant that it is responsible for maintaining. This is a special kind of postcondition that applies particularly to member functions. An essential postcondition of every non-private member function is that it must re-establish its class’s invariants.
Any other condition is not an error and should not be reported as an error.
Why are Exceptions said to be so bad for Input Validation?
I guess it is because of a somewhat ambiguous understanding of “input” as either meaning input of a function or value of a field, where the latter should’t throw an exception unless it is part of a failing function.
Maintainability - Exceptions create
odd code paths, not unlike GOTOs.
Ease of Use (for other classes) -
Other classes can trust that
exceptions raised from your user
input class are actual errors
Performance - In most languages, an
exception incurs a performance and
memory usage penalty.
Semantics - The meaning of words
does matter. Bad input is not
"exceptional".
I think the difference depends on the contract of the particular class, i.e.
For code that is meant to deal with user input, and program defensively for it (i.e. sanitise it) it would be wrong to throw an exception for invalid input - it is expected.
For code that is meant to deal with already sanitised and validated input, which may have originated with the user, throwing an exception would be valid if you found some input that is meant to be forbidden. The calling code is violating the contract in that case, and it indicates a bug in the sanitising and/or calling code.
When using exceptions, the error handling code is separated from the code causing the error. This is the intent of exception handling - being an exceptional condition, the error can not be handled locally, so an exception is thrown to some higher (and unknown) scope. If not handled, the application will exit before any more hard is done.
If you ever, ever, ever throw exception when you are doing simple logic operations, like verifying user input, you are doing something very, very very, wrong.
The input is Not what was expected and
hence is exceptional.
This statement does not sit well with me at all. Either the UI constrains user input (eg, the use of a slider that bounds min/max values) and you can now assert certain conditions - no error handling required. Or, the user can enter rubbish and you expect this to happen and must handle it. One or the other - there is nothing exception going here whatsoever.
Throwing an exception allows me to
define exactly what was wrong like
StringValueTooLong or or
IntegerValueTooLow or InvalidDateValue
or whatever. Why is this considered
wrong?
I consider this beyond - closer to evil. You can define an abstract ErrorProvider interface, or return a complex object representing the error rather than a simple code. There are many, many options on how you retrieve error reports. Using exceptions because the are convenient is so, so wrong. I feel dirty just writing this paragraph.
Think of throwing an exception as hope. A last chance. A prayer. Validating user input should not lead to any of these conditions.
Is it possible that some of the disagreement is due to a lack of consensus about what 'user input' means? And indeed, at what layer you're coding.
If you're coding a GUI user interface, or a Web form handler, you might well expect invalid input, since it's come direct from the typing fingers of a human being.
If you're coding the model part of an MVC app, you may have engineered things so that the controller has sanitised inputs for you. Invalid input getting as far as the Model would indeed be an exception, and may be treated as such.
If you're coding a server at the protocol level, you might reasonably expect the client to be checking user input. Again, invalid input here would indeed be an exception. This is quite different from trusting the client 100% (that would be very stupid indeed) - but unlike direct user input, you predict that most of the time inputs would be OK. The lines blur here somewhat. The more likely it is that something happens, the less you want to use exceptions to handle it.
This is a linguistic pov( point of view) on the matter.
Why are Exceptions said to be so bad for Input Validation?
conclusion :
Exceptions are not defined clearly enough, so there are different opinions.
Wrong input is seen as a normal thing, not as an exception.
thoughts ?
It probably comes down to the expectations one takes about the code that is created.
the client can not be trusted
validation has to happen at the server's side.
stronger : every validation happens at server's side.
because validation happens at the server's side it is expected to be done there and what is expected is not an exception, since it is expected.
However,
the client's input can not to be trusted
the client's input-validation can be trusted
if validation is trusted it can be expected to produce valid input
now every input is expected to be valid
invalid input is now unexpected, an exception
.
exceptions can be a nice way to exit the code.
A thing mentioned to consider is if your code is left in a proper state.
I would not know what would leave my code in an improper state.
Connections get closed automatically, leftover variables are garbage-collected, what's the problem?
Another vote against exception handling for things that aren't exceptions!
In .NET the JIT compiler won't perform optimizations in certain cases even when exceptions aren't thrown. The following articles explain it well.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/peterritchie/archive/2007/06/22/performance-implications-of-try-catch-finally.aspx
http://msmvps.com/blogs/peterritchie/archive/2007/07/12/performance-implications-of-try-catch-finally-part-two.aspx
When an exception gets thrown it generates a whole bunch of information for the stack trace which may not be needed if you were actually "expecting" the exception as is often the case when converting strings to int's etc...
In general, libraries throw exceptions and clients catch them and do something intelligent with them. For user input I just write validation functions instead of throwing exceptions. Exceptions seem excessive for something like that.
There are performance issues with exceptions, but in GUI code you won't generally have to worry about them. So what if a validation takes an extra 100 ms to run? The user isn't going to notice that.
In some ways it's a tough call - On the one hand, you might not want to have your entire application come crashing down because the user entered an extra digit in a zip code text box and you forgot to handle the exception. On the other, a 'fail early, fail hard' approach ensures that bugs get discovered and fixed quickly and keeps your precious database sane. In general I think most frameworks recommend that you don't use exception handling for UI error checking and some, like .NET Windows Forms, provide nice ways to do this (ErrorProviders and Validation events) without exceptions.
Exceptions should not be used for input validation, because not only should exceptions be used in exceptional circumstances (which as it has been pointed out incorrect user entry is not) but they create exceptional code (not in the brilliant sense).
The problem with exceptions in most languages is they change the rules of program flow, this is fine in a truly exceptional circumstance where it is not necessarily possible to figure our what the valid flow should be and therefore just throw an exception and get out however where you know what the flow should be you should create that flow (in the case listed it would be to raise a message to the user telling them they need to reenter some information).
Exceptions were truly overused in an application I work on daily and even for the case where a user entered an incorrect password when logging in, which by your logic would be an exception result because it is not what the application wants. However when a process has one of two outcomes either correct or incorrect, I dont think we can say that, incorrect, no matter how wrong, is exceptional.
One of the major problems I have found with working with this code is trying to follow the logic of the code without getting deeply involved with the debugger. Although debuggers are great, it should be possible to add logic to what happens when a user enters an incorrect password without having to fire one up.
Keep exceptions for truly exceptional execution not just wrong. In the case I was highlighting getting your password wrong is not exceptional, but not being able to contact the domain server may be!
When I see exceptions being thrown for validation errors I often see that the method throwing the exception is performing lots of validations all at once. e.g.
public bool isValidDate(string date)
{
bool retVal = true;
//check for 4 digit year
throw new FourDigitYearRequiredException();
retVal = false;
//check for leap years
throw new NoFeb29InANonLeapYearException();
retVal = false;
return retVal;
}
This code tends to be pretty fragile and hard to maintain as the rules pile up over the months and years. I usually prefer to break up my validations into smaller methods that return bools. It makes it easier to tweak the rules.
public bool isValidDate(string date)
{
bool retVal = false;
retVal = doesDateContainAFourDigitYear(date);
retVal = isDateInALeapYear(date);
return retVal;
}
public bool isDateInALeapYear(string date){}
public bool doesDateContainAFourDigitYear(string date){}
As has been mentioned already, returning an error struct/object containing information about the error is a great idea. The most obvious advantage being that you can collect them up and display all of the error messages to the user at once instead of making them play Whack-A-Mole with the validation.
i used a combination of both a solution:
for each validation function, i pass a record that i fill with the validation status (an error code).
at the end of the function, if a validation error exists, i throw an exception, this way i do not throw an exception for each field, but only once. i also took advantage that throwing an exception will stop execution because i do not want the execution to continue when data is invalid.
for example
procedure Validate(var R:TValidationRecord);
begin
if Field1 is not valid then
begin
R.Field1ErrorCode=SomeErrorCode;
ErrorFlag := True;
end;
if Field2 is not valid then
begin
R.Field2ErrorCode=SomeErrorCode;
ErrorFlag := True;
end;
if Field3 is not valid then
begin
R.Field3ErrorCode=SomeErrorCode;
ErrorFlag := True;
end;
if ErrorFlag then
ThrowException
end;
if relying on boolean only, the developer using my function should take this into account writing:
if not Validate() then
DoNotContinue();
but he may forgot and only call Validate() (i know that he should not, but maybe he might).
so, in the code above i gained the two advantages:
1-only one exception in the validation function.
2-exception, even uncaught, will stop the execution, and appear at test time.
8 years later, and I'm running into the same dilemma trying to apply the CQS pattern. I'm on the side that input validation can throw an exception, but with an added constraint. If any input fails, you need to throw ONE type of exception: ValidationException, BrokenRuleException, etc. Don't throw a bunch of different types as it'll be impossible to handle them all. This way, you get a list of all the broken rules in one place. You create a single class that is responsible for doing validation (SRP) and throw an exception if at least 1 rule is broken. That way, you handle one situation with one catch and you know you are good. You can handle that scenario no matter what code is called. This leaves all the code downstream much cleaner as you know it is in a valid state or it wouldn't have gotten there.
To me, getting invalid data from a user is not something you would normally expect. (If every user sends invalid data to you the first time, I'd take a second look at your UI.) Any data that prevents you from processing the true intent whether it is user or sourced elsewhere needs to abort processing. How is it any different than throwing an ArgumentNullException from a single piece of data if it was user input vs. it being a field on a class that says This is required.
Sure, you could do validation first and write that same boilerplate code on every single "command", but I think that is a maintenance nightmare than catching invalid user input all in one place at the top that gets handled the same way regardless. (Less code!) The performance hit will only come if the user gives invalid data, which should not happen that often (or you have bad UI). Any and all rules on the client side have to be re-written on the server, anyway, so you could just write them once, do an AJAX call, and the < 500 ms delay will save you a ton of coding time (only 1 place to put all your validation logic).
Also, while you can do some neat validation with ASP.NET out of the box, if you want to re-use your validation logic in other UIs, you can't since it is baked into ASP.NET. You'd be better off creating something below and handling it above regardless of the UI being used. (My 2 cents, at least.)
I agree with Mitch that that "Exceptions should not be used for normal control flow". I just want to add that from what I remember from my computer science classes, catching exceptions is expensive. I've never really tried to do benchmarks, but it would be interesting to compare performance between say, an if/else vs try/catch.
One problem with using exceptions is a tendency to detect only one problem at a time. The user fixes that and resubmits, only to find another problem! An interface that returns a list of issues that need resolving is much friendlier (though it could be wrapped in an exception).
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.)