D
dmcreyno
I hate to bring this up again, but someone is trying to get me to do
something I wouldn't normally do.
I am being told keep all try blocks to a bare minimum in size. This is
leading to methods that have lots of small try/catch constructs
sprinkled about. IMHO, it makes the code bulky and less readable than
having a try/catch with a handful of catch clauses. While I have
abstained from following this advice so far, others are creating ugly
methods that we all end up having to maintain.
No one seems to be able to articulate exactly what problem is being
solved, just some vague references to performance which I find counter
intuitive. If a try clause causes the compiler to create a "protected"
section of code then more "trys" will lead to more "protected" sections
(protected: stack trace maintenance) and that souldn't be a good thing.
something I wouldn't normally do.
I am being told keep all try blocks to a bare minimum in size. This is
leading to methods that have lots of small try/catch constructs
sprinkled about. IMHO, it makes the code bulky and less readable than
having a try/catch with a handful of catch clauses. While I have
abstained from following this advice so far, others are creating ugly
methods that we all end up having to maintain.
No one seems to be able to articulate exactly what problem is being
solved, just some vague references to performance which I find counter
intuitive. If a try clause causes the compiler to create a "protected"
section of code then more "trys" will lead to more "protected" sections
(protected: stack trace maintenance) and that souldn't be a good thing.