[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: code convention
From:       Rodrigo Bonifacio <rbonifacio123 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-08-12 14:34:06
Message-ID: CAGG4y8VtuWdOmsJLYVG4_q2j-F_K4oOCSu2J7da=kGB-3dyAeQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Thanks for your feedback Sune. I will try to improve our survey as
soon as possible.

Regards,

Rodrigo.


2014-08-12 11:29 GMT-03:00 Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk>:
> On 2014-08-12, Rodrigo Bonifacio <rbonifacio123@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear kevin, I am conducting a survey about the use of exception
>> handling constructs in C++. I would really appreciate if you could
>> contribute to this research by answering a few questions on the
>> subject.
>>
>> The survey is available on-line:
>>
>> https://pt.surveymonkey.com/s/exceptionHandling
>
> The survey misses options.
>
> The main reason why I don't use exceptions and recommend people to stay
> away from exceptions is that exceptions in c++ is hard. You very easily
> leak resources. There is no possibility to have compiler-checks that
> specific exceptions are handled (think java's checked exceptions).
> You can only emulate a try-finally thing with raii-structs, but that's
> more bulky.
> And c++-exceptions don't have stacktrace information.
>
> I develop stuff at work sometimes in java, sometimes in c++ (often with
> Qt) and enjoy using exceptions in java just as much as I avoid using
> them in c++.
>
> /Sune
>
>
>>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]