Code review - hilarious code snippets

[suityou01]

Exactly my point, the .NET runtime protects you from all if the low level details where a badly written program could BSOD.

.Net apps only run in user mode so you could argue quite legitimately that the windows runtime architecture protects you from BSOD rather than the programming environment.

[suityou01]

I doubt testing for null is an expensive operation and can probably be optimized by the compiler.

You'd have thought.

[doodab]

What about encapsulation? You would want to take into your thoughts what happens to the caller if this goes bang? Using a try block with no exception being raised sounds dodgy IMVHO, and runs the risk of creating time bombs.

Just sayin like

What happens when it 'goes bang' is that you get an exception. The point is that when it doesn't then you only execute the try block, which is quicker than checking results for null every time.

[xoggoth]

There was a chap kicked out of the aerospace place I was at, it was all rather basic C. As you may imagine, aircraft software has to be very carefully controlled and you do only what is absolutely necessary according to the design spec but he was modding unrelated modules because he didn't like some name or whatever.

[doodab]

That wasn't what he was saying. Its the cost of testing for null all the time compared to using a try block with an exception. I don't think anyone has suggested using a try block with no exception (until you arrived).

Probably because the compiler won't let you write a try with no catch

[suityou01]

What happens when it 'goes bang' is that you get an exception. The point is that when it doesn't then you only execute the try block, which is quicker than checking results for null every time.

unhandled exception

[eek]

Testing for a null result is more expensive than a try block if no exception is raised

Post 44, paragraph 1, sentence 2, clause 1.

HTH BIDI

Is not suggesting you create a try block with no exception capture its a statement on whether a try block is more expansive than testing for a null result.

[suityou01]

Probably because the compiler won't let you write a try with no catch

But it will let you write an empty catch. Hence "raising a try without raising an exception" made me raise my eyebrows.

[suityou01]

Is not suggesting you create a try block with no exception capture its a statement on whether a try block is more expansive than testing for a null result.

And again in English

[russell]

Is not suggesting you create a try block with no exception capture its a statement on whether a try block is more expansive than testing for a null result.

Exceptions should only be used for situations that you cannot foresee i.e. A external resource not being available, not for an empty search result from a query, the clue is in the name.