this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
335 points (100.0% liked)

196

16489 readers
2268 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] nyjan@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My personal take on this, at least when dealing with more complex or production code:

Performance is not an issue with exceptions if you don't use them for control flow, they should be an unusual occurrence wherever possible.

If you expect to throw and later handle an exception regularly, I'd try to include relevant info about the failure in the returned value, or even better in the returned type, and skip throwing the exception altogether.

Returning a type that contains both error info and the actual result (if there is one) and forces the caller of your function to handle any contained error info before being able to access the actual result has the same effect as a try/catch block without the major performance implications.

This is basically what rust does everywhere in order to completely remove the concept of exceptions, but it's a nice performance optimization for langues with exceptions as well.

Exceptions should interrupt your programs flow, not control it, at least in all hot execution paths. Thanks for coming to my ted talk

[โ€“] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 points 8 months ago

Performance isn't an issue if you don't care about performance, correct.