That is not better code. Couple of try-catch-catch-catch-...-catch cases in a function that would otherwise be 2-3 lines long makes for an awful code.

Also, imagine a situation when an iterator throws an exception. Or you wanted to write f(g()) but now you can't and have to do:

    try:
        T t = g();
    catch E1:
        ...
    catch En:
        ...
    f(t);

Now it takes a much greater effort for the reader to figure out what's going on. It's also tempting to allow some exception cases to succeed so, f(t) is reached even if there was an error. Because these two code pieces are now far apart, it's possible that later edits will introduce bugs because the programmer didn't see that either f(t) is reachable even if g() failed, or accidentally made it reachable when it shouldn't have been.

Bottom line, it makes human errors more likely.

This is only because you use exceptions incorrectly. You can (and should) write:

try {

  final var fResult = f(g());

  //do something with fResult 

}

catch (E1 e) {...}

catch (En e) {...}

That's the main idea of exceptions in all languages: main flow is kept together and exceptional flows are separate.

I think there’s a strong assumption in this pattern that can and should be handled immediately and that there is a recovery path from the failure, if there is no recovery path and you’re just propagating the error this pattern becomes an awfully verbose return statement.

When structured exception handling was becoming popular (C++ in nineties?) the idea was that immediate error handling (like when you have to check return values for errors) makes the main flow (happy path) blurred and unreadable.

You cannot have both at the same time, I'm afraid.

I think the issue with this pattern is that either we don't care about went wrong, we want to treat all errors the same way, and then having n catch clauses is overkill. Or we do care about went wrong, and in that case the exception type is not enough to identify the issue, as often multiple lines in the try block will throw the same exception type.

Yes - that's one of the issues with structured exception handling. Relying only on exception type itself is not enough as information is lost (ie. the actual source of exception)

Crazy idea: Maybe it would be helpful if we could label operations, and catch by either label or type or (label, type). The we could centralize error handling without losing anything.

While deceptive at first... Just try to imagine how "extract method" refactoring would work...

It would have to do some clever rewriting of the logic or it could simply declare that extracting method isn't available on that region. The simplest way to rewrite the logic may be the introduction of new exception type(s) corresponding to the labels.

They also have to throw RuntimeException if they want to use APIs that accept functions and therefor specify which checked exceptions those functions are allowed to throw, like Streams.

I will acknowledge that this wasn't the best code (or the best programmers).

I will also cede the point that you can write good code in Java.

But my point was that Java wouldn't have enforced the situation to be a compile error, not that you can't write good code in Java. I maintain this point, and I think it's true for the average java project.

If you're getting these benefits from Java, it's the intersection of Java and your team's or your organization's culture, not purely from Java. It's possible for you to gain this benefit and for checked exceptions to have still failed out in the wider world of the average Java project.

And a lack of checked exceptions means good programmers can't write good code? So good code may only be written in Java?

No... I don't think so.

Checked Exceptions are at best, just a 'hey, are you sure that's right thing to do here?' and at worst, an additional source of rigidity in your code that blows up the scale of a minor change.

> And a lack of checked exceptions means good programmers can't write good code?

Right, and that was my point at the top post in this thread.

Wait, you seriously hold that position!? As in, only Java permits good code?

Each language has its strengths and weaknesses. In the case of exceptions Java gets it right, C# doesn't. There are other aspects that C# does better than Java.