Aside from how Microsoft stole it, fucked the standard library, fucked the naming conventions, etc. You would never just “throw” without specifying what you were throwing.
This is incorrect. The C# is valid. Throw in a catch statement simply rethrows the caught exception. Source: I’ve been writing C# for 20 years, also the docs.
I won’t act like MS absolutely didn’t steal core concepts and syntax from Java, but I’ve always thought C# was much more thoughtfully designed. Anders Hejlsberg is a good language designer, TypeScript is also a really excellent language.
In Java you would say “throw e;” (to rethrow the same exception you just caught.)
You wouldn’t just say “throw”
Or you could also throw some other exception. But the syntax requires you specify what it is you are throwing. (And sane in C++, where you could throw any object, even a primitive.)
Wildly, in C# you can do either and it has different results. I believe a bare throw doesn’t append to the stack trace, it keeps the original trace intact, while throw e updates the stack trace (stored on the exception object) with the catch and rethrow.
In C#, you can only throw objects whose class derives from Exception.
You can do either, but you usually do neither. The best way is to throw a new exception for your situation and add the caught exception as an inner exception. Because rethrowing resets the stack trace, removing the context from an exception message that is often pretty vague, and “bouncing” with throw; doesn’t tell the next exception handler that you already handled (part of) the exception.
To be honest I’m just playing into the meme of Java.
My understanding is it’s academically great, but a pain in practice.
For reference we use C# .Net, Entity Framework with GraphQL and React TypeScript for our enterprise applications and I really like C# now, but when I first started I’d only really used Node.js and some Java.
No it’s not “basically Java”
Aside from how Microsoft stole it, fucked the standard library, fucked the naming conventions, etc. You would never just “throw” without specifying what you were throwing.
This is incorrect. The C# is valid. Throw in a catch statement simply rethrows the caught exception. Source: I’ve been writing C# for 20 years, also the docs.
I won’t act like MS absolutely didn’t steal core concepts and syntax from Java, but I’ve always thought C# was much more thoughtfully designed. Anders Hejlsberg is a good language designer, TypeScript is also a really excellent language.
In Java you would say “throw e;” (to rethrow the same exception you just caught.)
You wouldn’t just say “throw”
Or you could also throw some other exception. But the syntax requires you specify what it is you are throwing. (And sane in C++, where you could throw any object, even a primitive.)
So that was my question.
Wildly, in C# you can do either and it has different results. I believe a bare
throwdoesn’t append to the stack trace, it keeps the original trace intact, whilethrow eupdates the stack trace (stored on the exception object) with the catch and rethrow.In C#, you can only throw objects whose class derives from Exception.
You can do either, but you usually do neither. The best way is to throw a new exception for your situation and add the caught exception as an inner exception. Because rethrowing resets the stack trace, removing the context from an exception message that is often pretty vague, and “bouncing” with
throw;doesn’t tell the next exception handler that you already handled (part of) the exception.As a C# developer Java go go and die lol. It sucks imo.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
To be honest I’m just playing into the meme of Java.
My understanding is it’s academically great, but a pain in practice.
For reference we use C# .Net, Entity Framework with GraphQL and React TypeScript for our enterprise applications and I really like C# now, but when I first started I’d only really used Node.js and some Java.
No problem. I’m not sure if all of that would run on all the platforms I use.