Why not use exceptions as regular flow of control?

Have you ever tried to debug a program raising five exceptions per second in the normal course of operation ?

I have.

The program was quite complex (it was a distributed calculation server), and a slight modification at one side of the program could easily break something in a totally different place.

I wish I could just have launched the program and wait for exceptions to occur, but there were around 200 exceptions during the start-up in the normal course of operations

My point : if you use exceptions for normal situations, how do you locate unusual (ie exceptional) situations ?

Of course, there are other strong reasons not to use exceptions too much, especially performance-wise

Exceptions are basically non-local goto statements with all the consequences of the latter. Using exceptions for flow control violates a principle of least astonishment, make programs hard to read (remember that programs are written for programmers first).

Moreover, this is not what compiler vendors expect. They expect exceptions to be thrown rarely, and they usually let the throw code be quite inefficient. Throwing exceptions is one of the most expensive operations in .NET.

However, some languages (notably Python) use exceptions as flow-control constructs. For example, iterators raise a StopIteration exception if there are no further items. Even standard language constructs (such as for) rely on this.

My rule of thumb is:

• If you can do anything to recover from an error, catch exceptions
• If the error is a very common one (eg. user tried to log in with the wrong password), use returnvalues
• If you can't do anything to recover from an error, leave it uncaught (Or catch it in your main-catcher to do some semi-graceful shutdown of the application)

The problem I see with exceptions is from a purely syntax point of view (I'm pretty sure the perfomance overhead is minimal). I don't like try-blocks all over the place.

Take this example:

try
{
   DoSomeMethod();  //Can throw Exception1
   DoSomeOtherMethod();  //Can throw Exception1 and Exception2
}
catch(Exception1)
{
   //Okay something messed up, but is it SomeMethod or SomeOtherMethod?
}

.. Another example could be when you need to assign something to a handle using a factory, and that factory could throw an exception:

Class1 myInstance;
try
{
   myInstance = Class1Factory.Build();
}
catch(SomeException)
{
   // Couldn't instantiate class, do something else..
}
myInstance.BestMethodEver();   // Will throw a compile-time error, saying that myInstance is uninitalized, which it potentially is.. :(

Soo, personally, I think you should keep exceptions for rare error-conditions (out of memory etc.) and use returnvalues (valueclasses, structs or enums) to do your error checking instead.

Hope I understood your question correct :)

A first reaction to a lot of answers :

you're writing for the programmers and the principle of least astonishment

Of course! But an if just isnot more clear all the time.

It shouldn't be astonishing eg : divide (1/x) catch (divisionByZero) is more clear than any if to me (at Conrad and others) . The fact this kind of programming isn't expected is purely conventional, and indeed, still relevant. Maybe in my example an if would be clearer.

But DivisionByZero and FileNotFound for that matter are clearer than ifs.

Of course if it's less performant and needed a zillion time per sec, you should of course avoid it, but still i haven't read any good reason to avoid the overal design.

As far as the principle of least astonishment goes : there's a danger of circular reasoning here : suppose a whole community uses a bad design, this design will become expected! Therefore the principle cannot be a grail and should be concidered carefully.

exceptions for normal situations, how do you locate unusual (ie exceptional) situations ?

In many reactions sth. like this shines trough. Just catch them, no? Your method should be clear, well documented, and hounouring it's contract. I don't get that question I must admit.

Debugging on all exceptions : the same, that's just done sometimes because the design not to use exceptions is common. My question was : why is it common in the first place?

The standard anwser is that exceptions are not regular and should be used in exceptional cases.

One reason, which is important to me, is that when I read a try-catch control structure in a software I maintain or debug, I try to find out why the original coder used an exception handling instead of an if-else structure. And I expect to find a good answer.

Remember that you write code not only for the computer but also for other coders. There is a semantic associated to an exception handler that you cannot throw away just because the machine doesn't mind.

Josh Bloch deals with this topic extensively in Effective Java. His suggestions are illuminating and should apply to .NET as well (except for the details).

In particular, exceptions should be used for exceptional circumstances. The reasons for this are usability-related, mainly. For a given method to be maximally usable, its input and output conditions should be maximally constrained.

For example, the second method is easier to use than the first:

/**
 * Adds two positive numbers.
 *
 * @param addend1 greater than zero
 * @param addend2 greater than zero
 * @throws AdditionException if addend1 or addend2 is less than or equal to zero
 */
int addPositiveNumbers(int addend1, int addend2) throws AdditionException{
  if( addend1 <= 0 ){
     throw new AdditionException("addend1 is <= 0");
  }
  else if( addend2 <= 0 ){
     throw new AdditionException("addend2 is <= 0");
  }
  return addend1 + addend2;
}

/**
 * Adds two positive numbers.
 *
 * @param addend1 greater than zero
 * @param addend2 greater than zero
 */
public int addPositiveNumbers(int addend1, int addend2) {
  if( addend1 <= 0 ){
     throw new IllegalArgumentException("addend1 is <= 0");
  }
  else if( addend2 <= 0 ){
     throw new IllegalArgumentException("addend2 is <= 0");
  }
  return addend1 + addend2;
}

In either case, you need to check to make sure that the caller is using your API appropriately. But in the second case, you require it (implicitly). The soft Exceptions will still be thrown if the user didn't read the javadoc, but:

1. You don't need to document it.
2. You don't need to test for it (depending upon how aggresive your unit testing strategy is).
3. You don't require the caller to handle three use cases.

The ground-level point is that Exceptions should not be used as return codes, largely because you've complicated not only YOUR API, but the caller's API as well.

Doing the right thing comes at a cost, of course. The cost is that everyone needs to understand that they need to read and follow the documentation. Hopefully that is the case anyway.

How about performance? While load testing a .NET web app we topped out at 100 simulated users per web server until we fixed a commonly-occuring exception and that number increased to 500 users.

I think that you can use Exceptions for flow control. There is, however, a flipside of this technique. Creating Exceptions is a costly thing, because they have to create a stack trace. So if you want to use Exceptions more often than for just signalling an exceptional situation you have to make sure that building the stack traces doesn't negatively influence your performance.

The best way to cut down the cost of creating exceptions is to override the fillInStackTrace() method like this:

public Throwable fillInStackTrace() { return this; }

Such an exception will have no stacktraces filled in.

I don't really see how you're controlling program flow in the code you cited. You'll never see another exception besides the ArgumentOutOfRange exception. (So your second catch clause will never be hit). All you're doing is using an extremely costly throw to mimic an if statement.

Also you aren't performing the more sinister of operations where you just throw an exception purely for it to be caught somewhere else to perform flow control. You're actually handling an exceptional case.

Apart from the reasons stated, one reason not to use exceptions for flow control is that it can greatly complicate the debugging process.

For example, when I'm trying to track down a bug in VS I'll typically turn on "break on all exceptions". If you're using exceptions for flow control then I'm going to be breaking in the debugger on a regular basis and will have to keep ignoring these non-exceptional exceptions until I get to the real problem. This is likely to drive someone mad!!

Because the code is hard to read, you may have troubles debugging it, you will introduce new bugs when fixing bugs after a long time, it is more expensive in terms of resources and time, and it annoys you if you are debugging your code and the debugger halts on the occurence of every exception ;)

Lets assume you have a method that does some calculations. There are many input parameters it has to validate, then to return a number greater then 0.

Using return values to signal validation error, it's simple: if method returned a number lesser then 0, an error occured. How to tell then which parameter didn't validate?

I remember from my C days a lot of functions returned error codes like this:

-1 - x lesser then MinX
-2 - x greater then MaxX
-3 - y lesser then MinY

etc.

Is it really less readable then throwing and catching an exception?

Typically there is nothing wrong, per se, with handling an exception at a low level. An exception IS a valid message that provides a lot of detail for why an operation cannot be performed. And if you can handle it, you ought to.

In general if you know there is a high probability of failure that you can check for... you should do the check... i.e. if(obj != null) obj.method()

In your case, i'm not familiar enough with the C# library to know if date time has an easy way to check whether a timestamp is out of bounds. If it does, just call if(.isvalid(ts)) otherwise your code is basically fine.

So, basically it comes down to whichever way creates cleaner code... if the operation to guard against an expected exception is more complex than just handling the exception; than you have my permission to handle the exception instead of creating complex guards everywhere.

If you are using exception handlers for control flow, you are being too general and lazy. As someone else mentioned, you know something happened if you are handling processing in the handler, but what exactly? Essentially you are using the exception for an else statement, if you are using it for control flow.

If you don't know what possible state could occur, then you can use an exception handler for unexpected states, for example when you have to use a third-party library, or you have to catch everything in the UI to show a nice error message and log the exception.

However, if you do know what might go wrong, and you don't put an if statement or something to check for it, then you are just being lazy. Allowing the exception handler to be the catch-all for stuff you know could happen is lazy, and it will come back to haunt you later, because you will be trying to fix a situation in your exception handler based on a possibly false assumption.

If you put logic in your exception handler to determine what exactly happened, then you would be quite stupid for not putting that logic inside the try block.

Exception handlers are the last resort, for when you run out of ideas/ways to stop something from going wrong, or things are beyond your ability to control. Like, the server is down and times out and you can't prevent that exception from being thrown.

Finally, having all the checks done up front shows what you know or expect will occur and makes it explicit. Code should be clear in intent. What would you rather read?

You might be interested in having a look at Common Lisp's condition system which is a sort of generalization of exceptions done right. Because you can unwind the stack or not in a controlled way, you get "restarts" as well, which are extremely handy.

This doesn't have anything much to do with best practices in other languages, but it shows you what can be done with some design thought in (roughly) the direction you are thinking of.

Of course there are still performance considerations if you're bouncing up and down the stack like a yo-yo, but it's a much more general idea than "oh crap, lets bail" kind of approach that most catch/throw exception systems embody.

I don't think there is anything wrong with using Exceptions for flow-control. Exceptions are somewhat similar to continuations and in statically typed languages, Exceptions are more powerful than continuations, so, if you need continuations but your language doesn't have them, you can use Exceptions to implement them.

Well, actually, if you need continuations and your language doesn't have them, you chose the wrong language and you should rather be using a different one. But sometimes you don't have a choice: client-side web programming is the prime example – there's just no way to get around JavaScript.

An example: Microsoft Volta is a project to allow writing web applications in straight-forward .NET, and let the framework take care of figuring out which bits need to run where. One consequence of this is that Volta needs to be able to compile CIL to JavaScript, so that you can run code on the client. However, there is a problem: .NET has multithreading, JavaScript doesn't. So, Volta implements continuations in JavaScript using JavaScript Exceptions, then implements .NET Threads using those continuations. That way, Volta applications that use threads can be compiled to run in an unmodified browser – no Silverlight needed.

I feel that there is nothing wrong with your example. On the contrary, it would be a sin to ignore the exception thrown by the called function.

In the JVM, throwing an exception is not that expensive, only creating the exception with new xyzException(...), because the latter involves a stack walk. So if you have some exceptions created in advance, you may throw them many times without costs. Of course, this way you can't pass data along with the exception, but I think that is a bad thing to do anyway.

But you won't always know what happens in the Method/s that you call. You won't know exactly where the exception was thrown. Without examining the exception object in greater detail....