Home Page
About Us


Exception handling is a programming language construct or computer hardware mechanism designed to handle the occurrence of exceptions, special conditions that change the normal flow of program execution.


Try-catch is a syntactic construct for catching exceptions raised by a code section



Your try-catch does not do anything different;never catch the unchecked exception-handling including the nullpointerexception

from question  

Handling exception in Lamda Expression

Catch an exception-handling only if you know how you can usefully continue even knowing that some previous step failed - and very often you can t so surrounding only top-level actions with try-catch there logging the exception-handling to some log file and informing the user often is the best thing you can do

from question  

"Using try-catch and throws both for exception handling", is it a good approach?

Try-catch rsources is fine for some cases but this is the old way and works better when you have more than 1 exception-handling in a block

from question  

Why does my code create a .txt file, but doesn't write information in it?

We are very familiar with try-catch blocks that we can wrap over a set of code and if an exception-handling occurs then it will handle this exception-handling

from question  

Catching errors in Global.asax

Will hide the exception-handling and since dealing with exception-handling is heavier compared to a simple if t why isn t the normal new t not considered less good practice considering we will have to use try-catch to check if a simple allocation succeeded and if we don t just watch the program die

from question  

Nothrow or exception?

So here the unchecked exception-handling is better to use in order not to copy and paste all that ugly try-catch block rethrowing an exception-handling and add the throws clause to the method

from question  

How am I supposed to let an Unchecked Exception bubble up and log?

When you call input.nextline as part of your exception-handling catching is it better to place it into every catch block or just inside a finally block at the end of the try-catch

from question  

Java Exception Handling for Scanner input: Clearing bad data with nextLine (catch vs Finally)

Avoiding that with try-catch is probably better;exception-handling are fine for catching errors such as badly formed input when it s expected that input normally is valid

from question  

Code conventions - good or bad practice to catch exception instead of if-checking previously?

For that you ll have to use try-catch within using block;if the exception-handling is not caught you will see an exception-handling raised by the ide with the message an unhandled exception-handling of type system.exception occurred in the catch block

from question  

Try with resources in java and exceptions

In this case the try-catch version is not too bad but you still have to know which type of exception-handling is thrown and in which case;also in real-world code having a lot of try-catch statements makes code harder to follow

from question  

Handling custom exceptions in console applications

In general try-catch is more robust does not require you to define an exact position of where to test could be a block and provides info about the exception-handling

from question  

Why use Try/Catch instead of testing for an NSError

Yi rather than using try-catch in this way you should just use dispose instead - under the covers it does the same thing but the result is cleaner and easier to read;you should avoid catching swallwoing exception-handling too - if the above throws an exception-handling it is better if the caller handles the caller

from question  

Is it possible to write code that does the kind of damage that can't be fixed by terminating the process?

If you re planning on wrapping your code in a try-catch block with an exception-handling of nullreferenceexception then you should have something in place to handle this type of exception-handling and perform any necessary operations related to this error;that being said in situations where you know you may have the possibility of having an error which would throw an exception-handling it is better to check for this situation -- and not throw an error at all but gracefully handle it

from question  

Is better to detect for exceptions and throw them or just let runtime throw them?

Try-catch is not the expensive part;throwing the exception-handling is generating the stacktrace

from question  

Is Try-Catch More or Less Expensive Than Try-With-Resources

In a normal situation try-catch should not be that expensive performance wise as discussed in this thread do try catch blocks hurt performance when exception-handling are not thrown;however throwing and handling an exception-handling is usually a relatively expensive operation

from question  

Performance considerations throwing exceptions (best way to refactor this pattern)

If it s only in a job it s ok but if you plan to manage records in other points we warned that if you use nested try-catch blocks the control will go to the outermost try-catch block avoiding internal ones;well there are two or three exception-handling that aren t check programming manual i don t remeber them now they were related to ddbb record blocking and so on

from question  

Avoiding inserting duplicate data into table in MS Dynamics AX

Try-catch is actually slower if there really is an exception-handling thrown

from question  

Can try catch be used for code optimization?

Back to Home
Data comes from Stack Exchange with CC-BY-SA-4.0