Re: Why do some code bases don't use exceptions?
On Nov 21, 4:28 am, White Wolf <wo...@freemail.hu> wrote:
dragan wrote:
krel wrote:
I've seen it mentioned in several places that some code
bases - open source projects or proprietary company code -
deliberately choose not use exceptions in their C++ code.
The only example I can come up with at the moment is are
the Google C++ guidelines however, I've seen that notions
expressed in various places.
What are some reason that a project would choose not to use
C++ exceptions?
Because:
1. The "exception goto" creates spaghetti code.
It is not a goto. It does not specify where it goes. It
reports an error detected by the thrower to the handler
declared by the catch statement.
It is and it isn't. It is a goto, in the sense that it creates
additional possible program flow, which much must be taken into
account when analysing for correctness. It isn't, in the sense
that one of the major problems with goto is that it doesn't say
where we're coming from. Exceptions certainly don't have that
problem. And people like David Abrahams have successfully
addressed the issue of program flow, and least sufficiently for
exceptions to be acceptable in almost all code.
2. Developers use them as a crutch instead of solving problems.
A sweeping generalization.
A meaningless statement.
3. They don't understand them.
A sweeping generalization.
Probably true in the case of the poster, however.
4. It would be easier to build a space shuttle.
False statement.
Easier than what?
5. They are not necessary.
False statement. Any constructor that may fail and nearly any
use of the standard library will require exceptions.
No. C++ without exceptions is still Turing complete, so they're
not absolutely necessary. On the other hand, most large,
complex applications will be more difficult to write correctly,
and require more resources to develop, if you don't use
exceptions.
6. They use other techniques.
There are no other techniques for the above mentioned 2 cases.
7. They can't afford a C++ guru consultant.
They don't need to. All they need to be able to afford is a
copy of Effective C++ 3rd edition.
8. They constrain the system design.
Yeah, they constrain it. That was the statement, i cannot se
how it can also be the reason. :)
9. Google said they were bad.
I doubt it. Google is represented (today I think) by 3 people
at the C++ standardization committee. IIRC all of them has
participated in designing and voting on the exception features
for the first standard.
I haven't seen anywhere where Google has officially said
anything. And I don't think it would matter if they did---if
you look at the HTML emitted by Google mail, for example, you
know that quality is not an important issue for Google.
(IIRC, Google was not represented on the standards committee in
1998, when the first version of the standard was adopted. And
the text concerning exceptions was finalized before that. On
the other hand, at least one person currently representing
Google was a memer at the time, for a different company.)
--
James Kanze