Timeline for Why should 'boneheaded' exceptions not be caught, especially in server code?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2020 at 1:12 | comment | added | beppe9000 | @Mars Yeah, it sucks for users anyways... | |
| Jan 8, 2020 at 0:15 | comment | added | Mars | I just realized, "must absolutely be followed" should be "must 'absolutely' be followed". The former implies that yes, it absolutely must be followed (in which case it doesn't matter what your specific case is!), the latter implies that it's a questionable claim | |
| Jan 8, 2020 at 0:12 | comment | added | Mars | @beppe9000 That solves the issue for mobile where crash = lower ranking, but for user experience that doesn't change much. It would also require you to catch boneheaded exceptions in the first place | |
| Jan 7, 2020 at 19:46 | comment | added | beppe9000 | @Mars a client literally crashing is a bad thing. Stopping, showing some monobutton error modal dialog and returning to the starting state (screen) after user input is not. | |
| Jan 6, 2020 at 1:48 | comment | added | Mars | I'm not sure that I agree about clients being allowed to crash and users not noticing. If I recall correctly, app stores record the number of crashes for an app and will greatly drop your appearance ranking if your app is crashing. For gaming, crashing is fairly unacceptable, even more-so for anything involving multiplayer/live content. On the other hand, a server will likely have a monitoring service that will at least reboot it after a crash, so things aren't as black and white as this makes it sound | |
| Jan 5, 2020 at 4:41 | comment | added | chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- | Note that even on a server, "you the generic developer" should not normally be catching these exceptions; your framework should do it for you. | |
| Jan 4, 2020 at 21:57 | history | answered | gnasher729 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |