The problem with Try Catch Finally...

  • Thread starter Thread starter VB Programmer
  • Start date Start date
Chad Myers said:
This is highly unlikely since there were very specific reasons
why MS chose not to add strong-typed exceptions in .NET and specifically
C#. Very good reasons, I might add. This is a religious debate and
I feel that there are many more negatives to strong-typed exceptions
then there are positive.

I for one hope they do NOT include strong-typed exceptions in the
future.
Click to expand...

Chad, could you shed some light on the issue? Provide a URL to an article,
perhaps?
 
Chad Myers said:
"Exceptional Java"
(this is more of an argument from C++ saying that
Java and .NET-style exceptions are bad, which is pretty
naive, but there is a section talking about the downsides
of checked exceptions in Java)
http://www.octopull.demon.co.uk/java/ExceptionalJava.html
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how you reached this interpretation. I don't
remember saying mentioning .NET or saying the Java style exceptions
were bad. The point I tried to make was that they are different to
C++ exceptions and that the orthodox approach to using them was naive.

The approach described in that article (and the follow on "More
Exceptional Java") has been used sucessfully over numerous projects in
several organisations. (Some of which have no experience of C++.)
 
Man, this is beginning to get boring.

Agreed. Let's get back to code - this is getting us nowhere and doing
nothing for the group. It was fun for a bit, but we have now come to the
point where we have realized that the only points we are passionate about we
agree upon at some level, so now it's just nitpicking. Thanks for the
indulgence, however - I enjoyed it.

--
Chris Jackson
Software Engineer
Microsoft MVP - Windows XP
Windows XP Associate Expert
--
 
Chad Myers said:
I didn't mean that's what you guys said, I was describing that
specific URL. I was trying to summarize it for the folks who
were casually browsing.
Click to expand...

You summarised a URL but didn't intend the summary to represent what I
wrote in the article the URL refers to?! It appears that I'm through
the looking glass and talking to the white knight.

<shrug>
I was hoping to dicover how I'd communicated the wrong impression.
</shrug>
 
Alan Griffiths said:
"Chad Myers" <[email protected]> wrote in message

You summarised a URL but didn't intend the summary to represent what I
wrote in the article the URL refers to?! It appears that I'm through
the looking glass and talking to the white knight.

<shrug>
I was hoping to dicover how I'd communicated the wrong impression.
</shrug>
Click to expand...

heh, I'm confused. You wrote the article?

It's been a long time since I first read that article and
so I just skimmed it this time and the first 2-3 paragraphs, IIRC,
are talking about how the author liked C++ exceptions and how
Java exceptions are strange and have downfalls.

It seemed like an article from the C++ perspective to me.

Apologies if I misrepresented, but the person to whom that
post was directed got the information he needed, so that's
all that really matters. :)

-c
 
Back
Top