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.
Related
I tried to find resources on what is the standardised and accepted idiomatic D-way of handling errors, but I couldn't find any. If one is reading the official documentation on error handling, then one finds the following very important statements there:
Errors are not part of the normal flow of a program. Errors are exceptional, unusual, and unexpected.
Because errors are unusual, execution of error handling code is not performance critical.
The normal flow of program logic is performance critical.
I call them important, because the reasoning on using exceptions for such, well, exceptional cases is what leads the article towards the conclusion, that errors are special cases after all, and exceptions are the way to go, no matter what the costs are. Again from the same article:
Because errors are unusual, execution of error handling code is not performance critical. Exception handling stack unwinding is a relatively slow process.
In some special cases, where the exceptions may not be handled explicitly, but their presence should effect the state of things anyway, one should use the exception safe scope guards.
My main problem is, the above mentioned solutions and their examples in the documentations are indeed exceptional cases, which are pretty useful when we are hitting for example memory-related problems, but we don't want our program to fail, we want to maintain integrity and recover from those scenarios if possible, but what about other cases?
As we all know errors are not only used for exceptional cases and unexpected scenarios, but they are ways of communicating between callers and callees. For example errors can be used in a sanitiser. Let's say we want to implement a schema validation for an associative array. The type system alone is not capable of defining the constraints of the keys and values, so we create a function to check such objects during run time. So what should happen if the schema fails? Since we are interested on how it fails, the error that happened in it (that is, invalid data found) should also contain the information on what went wrong, therefore the caller would know how to act upon on it. Using exceptions is an expensive abstraction according to the author of the first article. Using the C-style function conventions, where the return values are all used for error states is the wrong way according to the same author in the same article.
So, what is the proper and idiomatic way of handling errors that are not exceptions in D?
Well, the TLDR version is that using exceptions is the idiomatic way to handle error conditions in D, but of course, the details get a bit more complicated than that.
Part of the question is what constitutes an error. The term error is used for many things, and as a result, talking about errors can be quite confusing. Some classes of errors are programmatic errors (and thus the result of bugs in the program), others aren't programmatic errors but are so catastrophic that the program can't continue, and others depend on stuff like user input and can often be recovered from.
For programmatic errors and catastrophic errors, D has the Error class, which derives from Throwable. Two of the commonly used subclasses of Error are AssertError and RangeError - AssertError being the result of a failed assertion, and RangeError being what you get when you try to index an array with an index that's out-of-bounds. Both of those are programmatic errors; they're the result of bugs in your program, and recovering from them makes no sense, because by definition, your program is in an invalid state at that point. An example of an error that's not a bug but which is generally catastrophic enough that your program should be terminated is MemoryError, which is thrown when new fails to allocate memory.
When an Error is thrown, there is no guarantee that any clean-up code will be run (e.g. destructors and scope statements may be skipped, because the assumption is that because your code is in an invalid state, the clean-up code could actually make things worse). The program simply unwinds the stack, prints out the Error's message and stack trace, and terminates your program. So, attempting to catch an Error and have the program continue is almost always a terrible idea, because the program is in an unknown and invalid state. If something is considered an Error, then it is the sort of condition where the error condition is considered unrecoverable, and programs should not be attempting to recover from it.
For the most part, you probably won't do anything explicit with Errors. You'll put assertions in your code to catch bugs when not compiling with -release, but you probably won't be throwing any Errors explicitly. They're mostly the result of D's runtime or assertions in code you're running catching bugs in your program.
The other class that derives from Throwable is Exception. It's used for cases where the problem is not a bug in your program but rather a problem due to user input or the environment (e.g. the XML that the user provided is invalid, or a file that your program attempts to open does not exist). Exceptions provide a way for a function to report that its input was invalid or that it's unable to complete its task due to issues outside its control. The program can then choose to catch that Exception and try to recover from it, or it can let it bubble up to the top and kill the program (though typically, it's more user-friendly to catch them and print out something more user-friendly than a message with a stack trace). Unlike Errors, Exceptions do result in all clean-up code being run. So, it's completely safe to catch them and continue executing.
However, what the program can do in response to the exception and whether it can do more than report to the user that an error occurred and terminate depends on what the exception was and what the program is doing (which is part of why some code subclasses Exception - it provides a way to report what went wrong beyond just an error message and allows the program to respond to it programmatically based on the type of thing that went wrong rather than simply responding to the fact that "something" went wrong). By using exceptions to report when something goes wrong, it allows for code to not directly handle errors unless it's the place in the code that you want to be handling errors, resulting in much cleaner code overall but with the downside that you can sometimes get exceptions being thrown that you weren't expecting if you weren't familiar enough with what could be thrown when. But that also means that errors that are reported don't get missed like they can be with error codes. If you forget to handle an exception, you'll know it when it happens, whereas with something like an error code, it's easy to forget to check it or not realize that you need to, and errors can be missed. So, while unexpected exceptions can be annoying, they help ensure that you catch problems in your program when they occur.
Now, the best time to use assertions vs exceptions can be a bit of an art. For instance, with Design by Contract, you use assertions to check the input to a function, because any code that calls that function with invalid arguments is in violation of the contract and therefore considered buggy, whereas in defensive programming, you don't assume that the input is valid, so the function always checks its input (not just when not compiling with -release), and it throws an Exception on failure. Which approach makes more sense depends on what you're doing and where the input for the function is likely to come from. But it's never appropriate to use assertions to check user input or anything that is outside of the program's control, because bad input is not a bug in the program.
However, while in general, the idiomatic way to handle error cases in D may be to throw an exception, there are times where that really doesn't make sense. For instance, if the error condition is actually extremely likely to occur, throwing an exception is an awfully expensive way to handle it. Exceptions are generally fast enough for cases that aren't happening all the time, but for something that happens frequently - especially in performance-critical code - they can be too expensive. And in such cases, doing something like an error code can make more sense - or doing something like returning a Nullable and having it be null when the function failed to get a result.
In general, exceptions make the most sense when it's reasonable to assume that the function will succeed and/or when it streamlines the code to make it so that it doesn't have to worry about the error condition.
For instance, imagine writing an XML parser that used error codes instead of exceptions. Each function in its implementation would have to be checking whether any function it called succeeded and return whether it itself succeeded, which would not only be error-prone, but it would mean that you'd essentially have error-handling code everywhere throughout the parser. On the other hand, if you use exceptions, then most of the parser doesn't have to care about errors in the XML. Instead of code that encounters invalid XML having to return an error code that the function calling it has to deal with, it can just throw an exception, and whatever code in the call chain is actually a good place to handle the error (probably the code that called the parser in the first place) is then the only code that has to deal with the error. The only error handling code in your program is then code that needs to deal with errors rather than most of your program. The code is much cleaner that way.
Another example where exceptions really clean up code would be a function like std.file.isDir. It returns whether the file name it's given corresponds to a directory and throws a FileException when something goes wrong (e.g. the file doesn't exist, or the user doesn't have permission to access it). For that to work with an error code, you'd be stuck doing something like
int isDir(string filename, ref bool result);
which means that you can't simply put it in a condition like
if(file.isDir)
{
...
}
You'd be stuck with something ugly like
bool result;
immutable error = file.isDir(result);
if(error != 0)
{
...
}
else if(result)
{
...
}
It's true that in many cases, there's a high risk of the file not existing, which would be an argument for using error codes, but std.file.exists makes it possible to easily check for that condition before calling isDir and thus ensure that isDir failing is the uncommon case - or if the code in question is written in a way that it's highly likely that the file exists (e.g. it was gotten from dirEntries), then you don't have to bother checking whether the file exists. Either way, the result is much cleaner and less error-prone than dealing with error codes.
In any case, the most appropriate solution depends on what your code is doing, and there are cases where exceptions really don't make sense, but in general, they are the idiomatic way to deal with errors that are not bugs in your program or catastrophic errors like running out of memory, and Error's are normally the best way to deal with encountering bugs in your program or catastrophic errors. Ultimately though, it is a bit of art to know when and how to use exceptions vs other techniques, and it generally takes experience to have a good feel for it, which is part of why questions about when to use exceptions, assertions, and error codes pop up from time to time.
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 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.)
Most program languages have some kind of exception handling; some languages have return codes, others have try/catch, or rescue/retry, etc., each with its own pecularities in readability, robustness, and practical effectiveness in a large group development effort. Which one is the best and why ?
I would say that depends on the nature of your problem. Different problem domains could require almost arbitrary error messages, while other trivial tasks just can return NULL or -1 on error.
The problem with error return codes is that you're polluting/masking the error since it can be ignored (sometimes without the API client not knowing they should check for the error code). It gives a (reasonably) valid output from the method at hand.
Imagine you have an API where you ask for a index key for some map, store it in a list, and then continue running. The API then at a later moment sends a callback, and that method might then traverse the table, using the key which might be -1 in this example (the error code). BOOM, the application crashes as you index to -1 in some array, and those kinds of problems can be very hard to nail down. This is still a trivial example, but it illustrates a problem with error codes.
On the other hand, error codes are faster than throwing exceptions, and you might want to use them for frequently accessed method calls - if it is appropriate to return such an error code. I would say that trying to encapsulate these kinds of error codes within a private assembly would be quite OK since you're not exposing those error codes to the client of the API. Always remember to document these methods rigorously since these kinds of application nukes can linger around in an application for a long time since they were triggered before it goes off.
Personally, I prefer a mix of them both to some extent. I use exceptions just for that - exceptions - when the program runs into a state which was not expected and needs to inform something has gone way out of plan. I am not a sucker of writing try/catch blocks all over my code, but it's all down to personal preference.
Best for what? Language design is always about tradeoffs. The advantage of return codes is that they don't require any runtime support beyond regular function calls; the disadvantages are 1) you always have to check them 2) the return type has to have a failure value that isn't a valid result of the function call.
The advantage of automatic exception handling is that error conditions in your code don't disappear.
The differences between exception handling semantics in various languages (and Lisp's condition system, E's ejectors, etc) mainly show up in how stack unwinding is dealt with when program execution should continue.
To summarize, though: automatic exception handling is extremely valuable when you need to write readable, robust software, especially in a large team. Letting the computer track error conditions for you gives you one less thing to think about when reading code, and it removes an opportunity for error. The only time I'd use return codes to indicate errors is if I was implementing a language with exception handling in one that didn't have it.
try/catch/finally does the job admirably.
It allows the programmer to handle specific conditions as well as general failures gracefully.
All said and done I'm sure that each is as good as any other.
I'd have to go with the try / catch concept. I feel like in terms of readability this provides the most to a code maintainer. It should be fairly straight forward to find the chain of function calls as long as the exception is properly typed and the associated message contains detailed enough data (I personally do not like including stack traces but I know plenty who do and this would make this even more traceable.) The return code implementation requires an external table of code definitions on a program by program basis. Which from personal experience is both unwieldy to maintain and reference.
For unusual perspective on exception handling, see Haskell's Control.Exception monad