this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
60 points (86.6% liked)
Programming
17020 readers
235 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As far as I remember, there were several attempts at introducing exceptions into type system, and all have failed to a various degree. C++ abandoned the idea completely, Java has a half-assed exception signature where you can always throw an unexpected exception if it's runtime exception, mist likely there were other cases, too.
So yeah, exception as part of explicit function signature is a vast improvement, I completely agree
Hmm, I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic. In my reply I didn't meant encoding Exceptions into Type system. Is this a type and you probably meant "Error Types as part of" instead "exception as part of"?
Honestly I don't know how Exceptions as part of type system would even look like. Because each function call in a chain would need to have all information from previous function call, otherwise that information gets lost to the next caller. The problem is the hierarchy of function and method calls. Somewhere some objects and functions can be edited to Throw a new Exception, that is not handled through the entire chain. And for the higher function caller, there is 0% way of knowing that (through code, besides documentation off course).
Yeah, I shaped my words poorly. What I meant is that errors are sort of equivalent to exceptions, but errors are first class citizens of type system, and this is an improvement over exceptions being kind of independent of type
Ah it was intentional and now I see how it was meant. It makes perfectly sense, it was just not clear before. :-) Human language and interpreter is not as precise like programming language.^^