Hacker News Reader

Comment by iopq | Hacker News Reader

Checked exceptions are gross, they get in the way when you're prototyping, and you end up just ignoring them anyway (since you're prototyping)

View on HN

The ergonomics of checked exceptions may be debatable but compared to golangs explicit error handling at essentially each function call is definitely worse.

Yeah, I've got a lot of Java experience and a wee bit of Go language experience and I agree with you. I like Go in almost every way except for it's error handling. It's just wrong to have to check every goddam function one by one

I guess that's the reason why most Java programs I use cannot do proper user-facing error messages. Because it is so easy to just ignore error handling. The exception will be caught by the top-level, right? This is how almost every Java cli tool prints a stacktrace on even most trivial user errors like file not found.

Having to deal with errors and forcing the developer to do proper error handling is a good thing.

I don't mind Go's errors. I do mind the complete lack of hierarchy in that. Java's exceptions are hierarchical. I can create an exception that specializes from `IOException` and that I feel is really powerful. Go added this half-baked and much later. So, most FOSS libraries don't support it yet.

Both Java checked and unchecked exceptions are inferior to signaling errors by return values like Go/Rust/Haskell do.

Exceptions are not composable, cannot be generic, and it is not visible in the source code which lines can throw, so every line is a potential branching point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com