try, try until you succeed. if you fail there is always catch....

Got a call about production was going to fail. They thought it's the application server.

I'm the end it was bogus file mods which were scrambled by the backup tool.

Why we didn't find out earlier? Because the java application was coded like this:

-------

String content;

Try {
File bla = new File
content = ... Read operation
} catch (IoException | SecurityEx | RuntimeEx ex)
// nothing we can do here
}

doWork(content);

---------

Why the fuck do we have code reviews? Why not just log or throw a Runtime Exception? Argh... I thought it would be better in enterprise applications. Perhaps I should tell them to not just use pmd, also spotbugs and sonarqube. But the department for the build tools does not have enough employees. Dang.

Anyway. Earned some money for that.

Now it's 2018 and I still get money for the same kind of bugs as 2008.

How to stay 1 step ahead instead of always try (and fail) to just catch up?

I feel like the amount of tools/FWs/languages/DBs that a web dev is expected to know now adays is not realistic, and overwhelming. not only you need to constantly learn about new things that are currently the *hottest hype word*, you also need to keep track of updates to the tools you already "know", so the more you try to know the more there is to keep track of, and also how can you remember everything you learned if in a typical workplace you usually use the same 1/2 languages?

Never have i ever felt like i know enough to be confident in my abilities when around other programmers

One of the worst practices in programming is misusing exceptions to send messages.

This from the node manual for example:

> fsPromises.access(path[, mode])

> fsPromises.access('/etc/passwd', fs.constants.R_OK | fs.constants.W_OK)
> .then(() => console.log('can access'))
> .catch(() => console.error('cannot access'));

I keep seeing people doing this and it's exceptionally bad API design, excusing the pun.

This spec makes assumptions that not being able to access something is an error condition.

This is a mistaken assumption. It should return either true or false unless a genuine IO exception occurred.

It's using an exception to return a result. This is commonly seen with booleans and things that may or may not exist (using an exception instead of null or undefined).

If it returned a boolean then it would be up to me whether or not to throw an exception. They could also add a wrapper such as requireAccess for consistent error exceptions.

If I want to check that a file isn't accessible, for example for security then I need to wrap what would be a simple if statement with try catch all over the place. If I turn on my debugger and try to track any throw exception then they are false positives everywhere.

If I want to check ten files and only fail if none of them are accessible then again this function isn't suited.

I see this everywhere although it coming from a major library is a bit sad.

This may be because the underlying libraries are C which is a bit funky with error handling, there's at least a reason to sometimes squash errors and results together (IE, optimisation). I suspect the exception is being used because under the hood error codes are also used and it's trying to use throwing an exception to give the different codes but doesn't exist and bad permissions might not be an error condition or one requiring an exception.

Yet this is still the bane of my existence. Bad error handling everywhere including the other way around (things that should always be errors being warnings), in legacy code it's horrendous.

How do you handle error checking? I always feel sad after I add error checking to a code that was beautifully simple and legible before.
It still remains so but instead of each line meaning something it becomes if( call() == -1 ) return -1; or handleError() or whatever.
Same with try catch if the language supports it.
It's awful to look at.
So awful I end up evading it forever.
"Malloc can't fail right? I mean it's theoetically possible but like nah", "File open? I'm not gonna try catch that! It's a tmp file only my program uses come oooon", all these seemingly reasonable arguments cross my head and makes it hard to check the frigging errors. But then I go to sleep and I KNOW my program is not complete. It's intentionally vulnerable. Fuck.
How do you do it? Is there a magic technique or one has to reach dev nirvana to realise certain ugliness and cluttering is necessary for the greater good sometimes and no design pattern or paradigm can make it clean and complete?