| |||||||||||||
Imaginary lossesImaginary lossesPosted Mar 27, 2008 20:56 UTC (Thu) by pphaneuf (guest, #23480)In reply to: Imaginary losses by wahern Parent article: Striking gold in binutils
From my experience, the more common thing is not really try/catch, but letting the exception bubble up. Basically, you just want to clean up and tell your caller something went wrong. We'll agree that if there is a clean up to do, it's probably equally there in C and in C++, right? The "big saving" in C++ is in the case where you just clean up and bubble up the exception. If a function doesn't have cleaning up to do, it doesn't even go in that function at all! As they say, the fastest way to do something is to not do it.
(Log in to post comments)
Imaginary losses Posted Mar 27, 2008 21:24 UTC (Thu) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link] Hmmm, good point. So, if you don't throw from an intermediate function, you compound the savings. Well... I guess I'll just call "uncle" at this point. I personally don't like exceptions, specifically because in my experience letting errors "bubble up" usually means that much error context is lost, and the programmer gets into the habit of not rigorously handling errors (that's why, I guess, I didn't think about that pattern). But, in a discussion like this that's inapplicable.
Imaginary losses Posted Mar 27, 2008 22:15 UTC (Thu) by pphaneuf (guest, #23480) [Link] My theory is that you do something about it where you can. If you can't think of something useful to work around the problem, then just let it bubble up, maybe someone who knows better will take care of it, and if not, it'll be the same as an assert. That's clearly sensible in a lot of cases, because otherwise there would be no such thing as error statuses, they'd just all "handle the errors". I also quite prefer the default failure mode of a programmer failing to handle an error to be a loud BANG than silently going forward...
|
|||||||||||||