DaWei

I think it's a good mechanism to use for extraordinary errors or in situations where you want some class of errors to be handled from a central location. I would never use it in place of simple status checks.

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

lectricpharaoh

If you can learn C++, Java will be a total breeze. You'll have to learn some different ways of doing things, and will have to give up some things you may have become attached to (like pointers, destructors, and operator overloading), as well as learn entirely new library functions (err, classes and methods, sorry), but all in all, C++ is a very good foundation for Java. This makes sense, since Java stole 95% of its syntax and semantics from C/C++.

__________________
And once again, Probability proves itself willing to sneak into a back alley and service Drama as would a copper-piece harlot.
- Vaarsuvius, Order of the Stick

lectricpharaoh

I agree with this 100%. Exceptions are fine when the error is caused by something completely beyond your control, such as hardware failure. However, exceptions are also an order of magnitude more expensive from an efficiency standpoint than a simple compare, and as such, shouldn't be used as a replacement for checking return values.

This is one of my main beefs with Java. The language designers opted to use exceptions for nearly all error conditions; you see things like a method with a void return type throwing an exception, where returning a success/failure code would seem to be much easier. Of course, this isn't a flaw of the language itself, but rather of the design of the standard libraries.

__________________
And once again, Probability proves itself willing to sneak into a back alley and service Drama as would a copper-piece harlot.
- Vaarsuvius, Order of the Stick