From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7d3cb5920e882220
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Exceptions
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:29:01 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcctzml9ode.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <5947aa62-2547-4fbb-bc46-1111b4a0dcc9@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
 <KoSdnYQKWIUB9cXanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com>
 <wcczlwj1ra7.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <475c688f$0$17524$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <u1w9tk62w.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <4dae26fe-0c8a-46e1-9a33-43c18cf757ae@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <wccejdqzp9p.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <9f16235c-260a-460b-873c-2183c154cc0c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <wcclk7ypsbp.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <u4pem6r3t.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1197653351 6502 192.74.137.71 (14 Dec 2007 17:29:11
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:29:11 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WrheYoi4PntpebUXUI4Iv3h1qgc=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18947
Date: 2007-12-14T12:29:01-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net> writes:

> Long experience with Java code leads me to believe they cause more problems
> then they solve, simply due to the fact that the majority of programmers are
> coding at a junior or "naive" level.
>
> So, when the compiler demands an exception handler, then by golly they
> provide one -- one that simply swallows the exception with a log of
> the stack trace.

This is what I don't get.  I know there are lots of not-so-good
programmers around, but how hard could it be to teach that "junior"
programmer how to do this particular thing right?  It's not "rocket
science".  ;-)  And if the programmer can't learn this much, maybe
they don't have much aptitude for programming in the first place.

> This is in fact far worse than not handling the exception at all, since
> control flow is not aborted.

Indeed.  That's why exceptions are a good idea in the first place --
their default behavior is to STOP, as opposed to forging ahead blindly
causing who-knows-what chaos.

> So, the junior programmer evilly stuck in a do-nothing handler, but they had
> no clue they were being evil.

... and the senior programmer reviews the code, and gives the junior one
a few tips, and pretty soon ... <oh, never mind> ;-)

- Bob