Imo, if a method require the caller to do error handling, then that should be part of the return value. For example, use optional or either. Exceptions shouldn’t be part of any expected control flow (like file not found). Exceptions is an emergency panic button.
The exception is part of the method signature and thus part of the return value. I don’t see a difference between using if or try-catch to validate a method call.
I think try catch often leads to messy code. It breaks the control flow in weird ways. For some reason we’ve collectively agreed on that goto is a bad idea, but we’re still using exceptions for error handling.
Say an exception is triggered. Which of these lines triggered the exception? It’s hard to tell.
We might want to handle each type of error differently. If we fail to open the file, we might want to use a backup file instead. If we fail to read the file, we might want to close it and retry with the same file again to see if it works better this time. If we fail to close the file, we might just want to raise a warning. We already got what we wanted.
One way to handle this is to wrap each line around a separate try catch. This is incredibly messy and leads to problematic scopes. Another way is to have 3 different exception types: FileOpenException, FileReadException and FileCloseException. This is also incredibly messy.
Or we can include the error in the return value. Then we can do whatever we want programmatically like any other code we write.
The problem is that most languages with exceptions treat that as the idiomatic error mechanism. So checked exceptions were invented, essentially, to do exactly what you say: add the exception type to the function signature.
Having separate errors-as-return-values and unwinding-for-emergencies is a much more recent trend (and, IMO, an obviously good development).
I’m not sure why it’s “obviously” good to move from one mechanism to two: as a user I now have to categorise every path to work out which is appropriate.
What I said was less about adding to a function signature than it was about adding to a facade - that is, a system boundary, although the implementation may be the same depending on language. People typically use exceptions pretty badly - a function signature with a baggage-train of internal exceptions that might be thrown by implementation guts is another antipattern that gives the approach a bad rep. Errors have types too (or they should have), and the typical exception constructor has a wrapper capability for good reason.
My own use of jvm errors tends to follow the same kinds of patterns: I think the major fault with that model is having RuntimeException as a subclass of Exception, because it’s really intended for abandonment-style errors. (The problem is that lots of people use it instead as an exception system in order to cut down on boilerplate.)
I find it eye-opening that the author prefers callsite annotation with try (although I’m not going to argue with their experience at the time). I can see this being either “no big deal” or even “a good thing” to Rust users in particular - mutability and borrowing annotations at both callsite and definition aren’t required to make the language work afaict (your ide will instantly carp if you miss 'em out) but the increased programmer visibility is typically seen as a good thing. (Perhaps this is down to people largely reviewing PRs in a browser, I dunno.) Certainly there’s tons of good food for thought there.
That’s fine, and for that there are sum types. My own opinion differs - it’s a question of taste. Being able to bundle the handling of exceptional situations aside from the straight-line logic (or use RAIi-style cleanup) is notationally convenient.
Yes, you can do the same with monads; use the tools available to you.
Imo, if a method require the caller to do error handling, then that should be part of the return value. For example, use optional or either. Exceptions shouldn’t be part of any expected control flow (like file not found). Exceptions is an emergency panic button.
The exception is part of the method signature and thus part of the return value. I don’t see a difference between using if or try-catch to validate a method call.
I think try catch often leads to messy code. It breaks the control flow in weird ways. For some reason we’ve collectively agreed on that goto is a bad idea, but we’re still using exceptions for error handling.
Consider this example:
try { File file = openFile(); String contents = file.read(); file.close(); return contents: } catch (IoException) { }Say an exception is triggered. Which of these lines triggered the exception? It’s hard to tell.
We might want to handle each type of error differently. If we fail to open the file, we might want to use a backup file instead. If we fail to read the file, we might want to close it and retry with the same file again to see if it works better this time. If we fail to close the file, we might just want to raise a warning. We already got what we wanted.
One way to handle this is to wrap each line around a separate try catch. This is incredibly messy and leads to problematic scopes. Another way is to have 3 different exception types: FileOpenException, FileReadException and FileCloseException. This is also incredibly messy.
Or we can include the error in the return value. Then we can do whatever we want programmatically like any other code we write.
The problem is that most languages with exceptions treat that as the idiomatic error mechanism. So checked exceptions were invented, essentially, to do exactly what you say: add the exception type to the function signature.
Having separate errors-as-return-values and unwinding-for-emergencies is a much more recent trend (and, IMO, an obviously good development).
I’m not sure why it’s “obviously” good to move from one mechanism to two: as a user I now have to categorise every path to work out which is appropriate.
What I said was less about adding to a function signature than it was about adding to a facade - that is, a system boundary, although the implementation may be the same depending on language. People typically use exceptions pretty badly - a function signature with a baggage-train of internal exceptions that might be thrown by implementation guts is another antipattern that gives the approach a bad rep. Errors have types too (or they should have), and the typical exception constructor has a wrapper capability for good reason.
I should have stressed the “opinion” part of “IMO”. What I mean is that, when I read this, it struck me immediately as being exactly correct: https://joeduffyblog.com/2016/02/07/the-error-model/
That’s a cracking article.
My own use of jvm errors tends to follow the same kinds of patterns: I think the major fault with that model is having RuntimeException as a subclass of Exception, because it’s really intended for abandonment-style errors. (The problem is that lots of people use it instead as an exception system in order to cut down on boilerplate.)
I find it eye-opening that the author prefers callsite annotation with
try(although I’m not going to argue with their experience at the time). I can see this being either “no big deal” or even “a good thing” to Rust users in particular - mutability and borrowing annotations at both callsite and definition aren’t required to make the language work afaict (your ide will instantly carp if you miss 'em out) but the increased programmer visibility is typically seen as a good thing. (Perhaps this is down to people largely reviewing PRs in a browser, I dunno.) Certainly there’s tons of good food for thought there.I’m a Rust fan, and I do think they eventually struck a pretty good “visibility vs noise” balance with
?(which was highly controversial at the time).That’s fine, and for that there are sum types. My own opinion differs - it’s a question of taste. Being able to bundle the handling of exceptional situations aside from the straight-line logic (or use RAIi-style cleanup) is notationally convenient.
Yes, you can do the same with monads; use the tools available to you.