DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 2: Code Analysis for D with AnalyzeD by Stefan Rohe

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Wed Jun 12 14:17:10 PDT 2013


On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 13:46:20 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/12/2013 1:29 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> > Looking at dmd's source, looks like Walter actually wrote code to parse a
> > throws Exception, etc. to be part of the function signature but stripped
> > it out (surely because that's annoying).
> 
> That detritus should be removed.
> 
> It was a bad idea, which is why I disabled it.

Well, I assume that it was the beginnings of a checked exceptions 
implementations, and checked exceptions do have their advantages, but the 
general verdict of the programming world as a whole does seem to be that they 
were ultimately a bad idea. Sometimes, it _does_ suck to not know exactly 
which exceptions a function can throw, but on the whole, I think that we hit a 
good balance with nothrow.

What I find most interesting about checked exceptions is the fact that almost 
everyone thinks that they're a fantastic idea when they first encounter them 
and yet they're actually a bad idea. It's actually a good example of how a 
feature sometimes needs to be thoroughly field-tested before it becomes clear 
how good or bad it is.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list