Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 20:46 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Thread beginning with comment 533762
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Tue 4th Sep 2012 07:51
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender"
RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Tue 4th Sep 2012 07:57
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender"
RE[5]: Comment by Soulbender
by kwan_e on Tue 4th Sep 2012 08:14
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender"
"try/catch/finally does it by default
Try/catch does not automatically create spaghetti code any more than return values and message structures. "
Most try/catch (in Java especially) are for exceptions that normally people don't care enough about anyway, and so they catch them where needed and ignore.
So in terms of ignoring errors, they're not different. I'd prefer exceptions though if I do want to handle errors.





Member since:
2010-03-11
None of the things I mentioned do it by default (you have to make the decision to have spaghetti code.) try/catch/finally does it by default. That's the whole reason you people use it.
The definition of OO matters when we want to have serious discussions about it. It's sort of hard to judge the merits of something that lacks a solid definition.