And your justification for calling it a "wart" in the "notion of
'checked Exceptions'" is what, exactly?
The fact that having two completely different kinds of error handling in
just a few I/O classes constitutes a wart, of course.
That it's the truth is the only justification I need for making such a
statement.
This is not in any way the fault of the notion of checked exceptions;
rather it shows an advantage of the notion.
Causing warts to proliferate through library designs is an "advantage"?
Well, maybe to career language lawyers it is. Job security.
It is a design decision not to use a certain checked exception.
Checked exceptions live at the behest of the API writer. That the
writer gets to choose is the design purpose. That designer chose not
to use it. So you are calling one of its signal advantages a "wart".
It would have been nicer (and still inconsistent with other I/O error
handling) to throw an unchecked PrintStreamException type instead of
silently record errors somewhere.
I bet if PrintStream didn't eat the exceptions you'd be out there
complaining why they didn't make the obvious decision to eat them,
since the language gives that power and the debugging use case calls
for that.
Nope; see above. Better would have been an unchecked exception. Better
still would have been *no checked exceptions*, or a warning rather than
an error for an unhandled, undeclared checked exception, with maybe an
@SuppressWarnings option available for the case that it's not temporary
debug code but it can never actually throw the exception (e.g.
MalformedURLException declared as being thrown by the URL constructor,
but the code at issue uses a string literal to create the URL; if it
*does* throw, due to a typo in that literal, that's a bug right there
and not an invalid input from the outside world and so the exception
going unhandled and blowing things up with a stack trace is exactly the
right behavior anyway).
Some people will bitch about the strengths of a system, but logic is
against them.
So, it is your expressed belief that if anything constitutes "a strength
of a system" in *your opinion*, then that automatically, and in and of
itself, makes that thing *infallible*?
Wow.
