Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Today's inflamatory opinion: exceptions are bad
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2006-12-10 (02:40)
From: skaller <skaller@u...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Today's inflamatory opinion: exceptions are bad
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 20:42 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
> I think I've come to the conclusion that exceptions are bad.

Surely this has been known for at least 10 years -- qualified
by the comment "in the form they're in at the moment in most

Exceptions are basically a way to escape context, and possibly
restart in an old context with a new continuation.

Static exceptions are just fine, that is, those where you
have a 'catch' which is visible at the throw point.

But with full dynamic exceptions, there's no assurance of this.

What Felix does is: it provides 'static exceptions' (actually
it is a non-local goto), but you can wrap them in a function
and pass a closure in the usual way.

This ensures you cannot throw an exception which is not caught,
and factors the static and dynamic parts of the 'path' of the
thrown exception. The cost is passing the closure as an argument
explicitly everywhere: both more typing for the programmer
and loss of performance.

> For the former, returning a variant type ('a option if nothing else) is a 
> better idea, for (at least) two reasons. 

The main difficulty with this is the syntax of matches.

In 'micky mouse' cases it is easy:

> let getline ?channel () =
>  	match filedesc with
>  		| Some(c) -> input_line c
>  		| None -> (* read from stdin *) read_line ()

But in REAL code 'the rest of the program' has to go
where you wrote 'input_line c'.

So you either suffer HUGE matches or you have to pass
a LOT of context explicitly to an external function.

In Ocaml it is every worse, since only 'let rec' allows
you to ignore order of writing of functions, and that
cannot span module boundaries easily (yeah, i know that
is being worked on).

Ocaml has a number of things which make matches better than
'standard' match syntax -- polymorphic variants allow
handling whole groups of cases, and alternatives can be
joined provided they share arguments and guards.

These things help (thanks!) but they aren't enough to
reduce clutter to the same extent as exceptions do.

> let fixed_input_line channel =
>  	try
>  		Some(input_line channel)
>  	with
>  		| End_of_file -> None
> ;;
> and call it instead.  

That is useless in general .. see below ..

> Except often times this function is hand-inlined and 
> only serves to obfuscate the code.

In Felix I sometimes get 'Not_found' exception .. and I am using
hundreds of Hashtbl.find table key which I have to 'hand annotate'
with code like

	begin try Hashtbl.find table key 
	with Not_found -> print_endline "ERROR "; raise MyError

Your function above is actually useless, because it doesn't
have an argument representing the current location in the
code, nor does it allow a flexible error handling policy.

These cases are usually real errors, I don't want any None
case I just want to know where the error occurred. However
sometimes  I have:

	begin Hashtbl.find table key with Not_found -> [] end

and that tends to be written out literally every time. Large
numbers of named functions make for unreadable code too,
require extra work to propagate across compilation unit
boundaries, and can make a mess of your build system
in Ocaml (because you really have to define that
function in the first translation unit that uses it,
since Ocaml can't propagate functions backwards).

> This does force error handling to be *somewhat* local, but I think this is 
> a good thing, not a bad thing.  

I think that is only half the story. Localisation is a key
concept in programming -- one which researchers don't seem
to have paid much attention to.

The implication is that if there are case where you want
thing localised .. there are cases where you don't :)

Most C++ programmers will tell you exceptions provide a welcome
relief from C error handling.

So I would put the issue more like: programmers need
control over the localisation.

For example in Haskell you could use a monad to obtain a secure,
well principled, but 'not so local' way of handling

> The farther away the error handling is 
> from the error source, the harder it is to figure out what caused the 
> error, and what to do about it (other than just die).  If that's the 
> behavior I want, it's easy to just do:
>  	| Read_error (_) -> exit (-1)

Felix libraries do that. If there's a program error ..
it just aborts. 

> I suppose you could want to write code like "normally use conjugate 
> gradiant, unless you hit a problem, in which case back off and do the much 
> more numerically stable (if slower) gaussian elimination", with the 
> definition of "problem" being "hit a signalling float".  But this is very 
> much the exception that proves the rule- this is how rarely exceptions are 
> usefull.

I agree with your sentiments, but not the implied argument.

Basically we have exceptions because we have stacks.

If we did everything on the heap, and used continuations,
there would be no need for exceptions. Instead you'd just
choose which continuation to run next.

With that kind of programming model, especially one supported
with multiple threads of control (such as in Felix) new
development paradigms develop. If I may give just one example,
consider GLR parsing. Instead of backtracking -- which for
parsers cannot be generalised using a stack -- you spawn
parser threads.

With a suitable tool, you can do this .. but it is quite
hard to do natively -- the stack gets in the way, time
and again.

> The fact that I always feel dirty when I do this, and feel the need to 
> include a comment defending this decision is, I think, indicative ("Hmmm. 
> This means something!" -- Closet Encounters of the Nerd Kind).  


> My point here is this: Ocaml is not Java (a fact we should all be 
> gratefull for, IMHO).  Simply because Java and C++ do something, doesn't 
> mean that it's a good thing to do.

Ocaml has exceptions because it uses a stack model.

It has 'bad' exceptions because that's all we really know
how to do. Perhaps an expert would comment but I see
activity on delimited continuations (which I don't understand)
which looks like it is making progress.

> Major changes to the language itself I see as unlikely in the near term. 

IMHO: The Ocaml team has shown a willingness -- even eagerness -- to
make quite major changes -- polymorphic variants, labelled arguments
being two that come to mind. Some are less obvious but probably
also classify in terms of difficulty, such as inter-module

But for changes you have to remember they're French!

"It works in practice .. but does it work in theory?"

John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: