this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
60 points (86.6% liked)
Programming
17362 readers
209 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
They make valid points, and maybe it makes sense to always prefer them in their context.
I don't think exceptions always lead to better error handling and messages though. It depends on what you're handling.
A huge bin of exception is detailed and has a lot of info, but often lacks context and concise, obvious error messages. When you catch in outer code, and then have a "inaccessible resource" exception, it tells you nothing. You have to go through the stack trace and analyze which cases could be covered.
If explicit errors don't lead to good handling I don't think you can expect good exception throwing either. Both solutions need adequate design and implementation to be good.
Having a top-level (in their server context for one request or connection) that handles and discards one context while the program continues to run for others is certainly simple. Not having to propagate errors simplifies the code. But it also hides error states and possibilities across the entire stack between outer catch and deep possible throw.
In my (C#) projects I typically make conscious decisions between error states and results and exceptional exceptions where basic assumptions or programming errors exist.