Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

11
  • 13
    I only have arguments against this practice, and since you already seem convinced it's a bad idea, I'm not going to bother posting them. Commented Sep 12, 2011 at 18:33
  • 20
    @FrustratedWIthFormsDesigner : That's bad reasoning. What about the people who aren't convinced? What about my actual question where I specifically ask for reasons since I can't really tell "why" just that I know it's wrong. Commented Sep 12, 2011 at 18:35
  • 3
    My opinions depends highly on what the code in question actually does. There are things that can't be checked beforehand (or allow race conditions when trying to, such as many file operations - in the delay between the check and the operation, anything can happen to the file) and have to be try'd. Not every exceptional case which warrants an exception in general has to be fatal in this specific case. So, could you do it in a simpler, equally or more robust way without using exceptions? Commented Sep 12, 2011 at 18:36
  • 12
    I hope they don't really use the "finally" block as an "else" because the "finally" block is always run after the preceding code regardless of any exceptions being thrown. Commented Sep 12, 2011 at 20:09
  • 3
    What language are they using? It is perfectly fine in, say, OCaml, where the standard library throws exceptions routinely. Exception handling is very cheap there. But it won't be that efficient in CLI or JVM. Commented Sep 13, 2011 at 6:54