Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

12
  • All modern frameworks go out of their way to shield the programmer from the drudgery of handling checked exceptions. Commented Dec 2, 2013 at 12:59
  • @Marko no they do not. they just provide a way so that we dont have to handle non recoverable situational based runtime errors and exceptions. Am not sure what you mean by "handling checked exceptions" in your comment. Commented Dec 2, 2013 at 13:01
  • You said an unchecked exception is non-recoverable, whereas Spring, Hibernate, and many others specifically turn JDK's checked exceptions into unchecked ones. Therefore you claim that they turn recoverable into unrecoverable errors. Commented Dec 2, 2013 at 13:03
  • actually what i meant was the intent of throwing unchecked exception by such frameworks is that they are non recoverable. The point i was making is that non recoverable situations are indicated in majority by unchecked exceptions. hibernate and spring are two big examples. spring's exception translator has this as one of its primary purposes. Commented Dec 2, 2013 at 13:21
  • 1
    When it comes to state-of-the art frameworks, this is the truth: checked exceptions do not even exist. For almost a whole decade they have been categorized as a failure of language design, causing boilerplate code, leaky abstractions, errors resulting from broken exception handling patterns, and so on. Commented Dec 2, 2013 at 13:37