> Checked exceptions don't mean I need to handle the exception right now.
Yes it does. You either use try-catch-catch-...-catch, or you append the new exception to the ever growing list of exceptions your function might throw. Even worse: when two functions called by the function you design can throw the same type of exception but for different reasons (eg. two functions cannot find a file, but those are different files), then, if you were a diligent and mindful programmer, you'd have to catch both and re-throw with new types, so that upstream could differentiate between the two failures, adding even more crutft into your code.
If it's an evergrowing list then you're using checked exceptions wrong and they highlight to you the problem of too many responsibilities in a single application.
Notice that IOException is one exception, you don't need to declare FileNotFoundException because it is an IOException. There's a similar hierarchy in an SQLException.
That's part of the beauty of checked exceptions. If your throws statement becomes too long or its stack carries too deep then you know you have a problem. This would be hard to notice otherwise.
Yes it does. You either use try-catch-catch-...-catch, or you append the new exception to the ever growing list of exceptions your function might throw. Even worse: when two functions called by the function you design can throw the same type of exception but for different reasons (eg. two functions cannot find a file, but those are different files), then, if you were a diligent and mindful programmer, you'd have to catch both and re-throw with new types, so that upstream could differentiate between the two failures, adding even more crutft into your code.