|
right. the developers should be forced to do it the right way every time. Especially when theres 0 benefit and tons of downside to doing it the wrong way. If you let the developer decide not to handle an exception they should have they'll either A) not realize they were supposed to handle it or B) not handle it out of lazyness. either way it will bite you in the rear end later on and you have to fix it anyways, so might as well do it right the first time.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
as far as i can tell from writing java for like 8 years or something (oh thank god i don't do it anymore) most java developers just treat checked exceptions as a different kind of return value
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
checked exceptions are fine, assuming catch(Exception e) { } still works in java
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
static language supremacy
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
gucci void main posted:static language supremacy static languages: when you want to waste a whole lot of time telling the computer things it already knows
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
gucci void main posted:static language supremacy what language
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
salted hash browns posted:Where do you get these logs? http://dispatch.accessfayetteville.org/
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
08:58:53 BREAKING OR ENTERING 1337 N FIDDLESTICKS PL
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:right. the developers should be forced to do it the right way every time. Especially when theres 0 benefit and tons of downside to doing it the wrong way. shaggar was right, mostly. Developers are lazy, and checked exceptions are fine. Imo though, an ioexcection or something like it should be handled within the method, if possible, instead of throwing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:IOExceptions, for example. java decided to make these exceptions checked because otherwise its up to the developer to realize they need to handle them. Java invented checked exceptions. Java is also the only language to use checked exceptions since their invention. quote:The only people who dont like checked exceptions are lazy p-languagers who arent writing code that matters. That and the designers of C#  I guess C# is a p-language now. Like every other language that isn't Java.oh shaggar, never change 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Ronald Raiden posted:shaggar was right, mostly. Developers are lazy, and checked exceptions are fine. What we need to do is give more work to lazy programmers. That will solve everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
vapid cutlery posted:as far as i can tell from writing java for like 8 years or something (oh thank god i don't do it anymore) most java developers just treat checked exceptions as a different kind of return value this poo poo makes me so mad i remember some new kid did this halfassed compiler that would raise a different kind of exception for each different kind of node it found, i mean what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
tef posted:What we need to do is give more work to lazy programmers. That will solve everything. eventually
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
rotor posted:this poo poo makes me so mad lmbo ok thats terrible, maybe checked exceptions aren't such a great idea if thats how they get used
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
a thousand monkeys typing on a keyboard gives you windows lolol macs rule
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Ronald Raiden posted:eventually at least shaggar is a gimmick, but with you, I don't know how you sleep at night
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
tef posted:at least shaggar is a gimmick, but with you, I don't know how you sleep at night
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
tef posted:at least shaggar is a gimmick, but with you, I don't know how you sleep at night that really hurts tef
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
I swear I was planning to contribute to hyperglyph this weekend but dark souls and then spilling beer on my macbook happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
rotor posted:this poo poo makes me so mad the idea that all exceptions must be errors is a weird one, especially when, at heart they are often more about non-local exits, rather than handling errors. you still have to write all the error handling code. error handling and fault tolerance comes from isolation of components, and exceptions don't do anything to help with that. i don't understand the 'oh poo poo you're using a non-local exit for something other than a failure, how dare you' mentality. (exceptions are also used to solve the semi predicate problem (instead of option types), and in some languages exceptions are more like co-routines (restartable exceptions) rather than delimined continuations  )
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Tiny Bug Child posted:checked exceptions are fine, assuming catch(Exception e) { } still works in java this is exactly what is wrong with checked exceptions lol if you add catch(Exception e) it defeats the entire purpose of having them checked. when one is added you will never know
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
i used to be a big fan of "static void int public main(char** argv[]) raises Exception" in disposable code i'd never run again then i quit programming java and life improved quite a bit because i didn't have to tell the computer what i was doing multiple times
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
tef posted:the idea that all exceptions must be errors is a weird one, especially when, at heart they are often more about non-local exits, rather than handling errors. you still have to write all the error handling code. i'm not a bear about insisting exceptions be for error conditions, but they are expensive and will potentially hork your poo poo if you're not careful (in java anyway), so people need to use them sparingly and with care is all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
tef posted:the idea that all exceptions must be errors is a weird one, especially when, at heart they are often more about non-local exits, rather than handling errors. you still have to write all the error handling code. using an exception in place of a return value, or as an additional return value seems wrong to me though. Exceptions don't have to be errors -- I use them for control flow in python, after all, but I don't think they should be thrown (heh) around willy nilly, esp since an uncaught exception that propagates up IS an error, at least in the languages with exceptions that I know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
rotor posted:i'm not a bear i kind of wish i was a bear, nothin to do but sleep all winter, then wake up and get fat as hell eatin berries and raw salmon, then maybe have some sex and go back to sleep for 4 months
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
Sweeper posted:this is exactly what is wrong with checked exceptions lol But don't you still need something like a general Exception catcher that you use to tell your users "Sorry there was an unexpected problem, please try again later" instead of showing them a giant fuckoff stacktrace?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:so i taught myself more sql with perl this weekend. im scraping the local police dispatch logs, storing them in mysql and then geolocating them all. then i have a client script that calcs distance and alerts me if poo poo goes down within 1 mile radius of my house. sounds like fun i pretty much started perl with the sql stuff because we're doing that so much. if you're writing your own db for that, did you consider using an orm (dbix::class)? that's how i would do it if i was taking in data and building my own db. i've been focusing on the web developing recently. it's not great, but perl has some p great frameworks for it that let me accomplish what i'm looking for super easy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Hard NOP Life posted:But don't you still need something like a general Exception catcher that you use to tell your users "Sorry there was an unexpected problem, please try again later" instead of showing them a giant fuckoff stacktrace? Or you could, you know, restart the bit that failed and it will probably be ok. Instead of making your users do it by hand every time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
oh poo poo that looks really cool and appears to be something that i could work right in. thanks  i'm really new to the DB side of poo poo so i'm bound to do tons of dumb trash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
tef posted:Or you could, you know, restart the bit that failed and it will probably be ok. Right, because when an external service that your application uses fails, it's your application that has to restart it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Hard NOP Life posted:Right, because when an external service that your application uses fails, it's your application that has to restart it. what people typically do is if a service fails that causes your service to fail and crash out is to: a) try to immediately restart N times b) after that, schedule a restart every X seconds/minutes/hours/fortnights
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
because why should users have to keep track of when some poo poo comes back up and then restart things by hand based on some (likely untracked) software dependency
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
why? I'll tell you why: because gently caress users, god i hate them so much
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
dont drink the orm koolaid
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
homercles posted:dont drink the orm koolaid this, also it was flavor-aid
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
rotor posted:i kind of wish i was a bear, nothin to do but sleep all winter, then wake up and get fat as hell eatin berries and raw salmon, then maybe have some sex and go back to sleep for 4 months i saw a youtube the other day of a bear just sitting in a big ol river near a waterfall and i got pretty jealous b/c it looked way better than sitting in an office chair
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Tiny Bug Child posted:i saw a youtube the other day of a bear just sitting in a big ol river near a waterfall and i got pretty jealous b/c it looked way better than sitting in an office chair this is what im sayin
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
rotor posted:why? I'll tell you why: because gently caress users, god i hate them so much this is the state of programming today, when code isn't written by autists with no empathy, it is written by misanthropes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
if there was a "bring keyboard to mains voltage" instruction, I would use it every time someone used the "right-click, copy" menu item.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
rotor posted:if there was a "bring keyboard to mains voltage" instruction, I would use it every time someone used the "right-click, copy" menu item. linux. the choice of a gnu generation
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:59
|
|