90
Comments
  • 2
    You monster 😫
  • 2
    That isn't a thing?

    I mean, not me. A friend of mine does use that. Yeah. That...monster!
  • 1
    I've always thought the exception try catch design pattern was bad anyway, I don't blame you at all.

    Anyone remember VB "on error resume next" basically code for from this point forward just keep executing code no matter what happens.
  • 1
    @runfrodorun agreed, it's not the tidiest of patterns.

    I've just had too many instances where I've been debugging a production issue and have found that the application has crapped out, but has kept trundling along because the problem's been suppressed by an empty catch block... I can't even
  • 0
    I actually made one because of a stupid exception that occurred only when windows was shutting down (and in the mean time prevented windows from doing so). The catch made the program terminate properly and safely.

    It's a long time ago so I might have logged the event but certainly did not handle it properly.
  • 1
    @runfrodorun Yeah, after trying Rust, I miss the exception/try/catch, but at least I handle my errors the right way in one language now
  • 3
    At least log it 😭😭😭
Add Comment