The Industry choice

[Aahz]

In article <xuTBd.66280$Jk5.42292 at lakeread01>,
Steve Holden  <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote:
>Aahz wrote:
>> In article <7xacrs230c.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
>> Paul Rubin  <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked exceptions when I first used
>>>them but have been coming around about them.  There's just been too
>>>many times when I wrote something in Python that crashed because some
>>>lower-level function raised an exception that the upper level hadn't
>>>been expecting, after the program had been in use for a while.  I'd
>>>sure rather find out about that at compile time.
>> 
>> That's funny -- Bruce Eckel talks about how he used to love checked
>> exceptions but has come to regard them as the horror that they are.
>> I've learned to just write "throws Exception" at the declaration of
>> every method.
>
>Pretty sloppy, though, no? And surely the important thing is to have a 
>broad handler, not a broad specification of raisable exceptions?

Yes, it's sloppy, but I Don't Care.  I'm trying to write usable code
while learning a damnably under-documented Java library -- and I'm *not*
a Java programmer in the first place, so I'm also fighting with the Java
environment.  Eventually I'll add in some better code.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"19. A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming,
is not worth knowing."  --Alan Perlis