Devs are just too lazy to think about proper error handling. They just don't like the look of "verbose" throws and try-catches. There I called it. Checked exceptions are a nice instrument for situations where you have a recoverable business error and no result object to integrate the error into. Anyway, be it runtime exception or checked exception or result object or Either or Try, a business error must be part of the API. They are not an abstraction leak. Runtime exception is the only one of the mentioned above that can be - and often is - made invisible to the caller. More on reddit.com

Java is still widely used in big MNCs and enterprise-level systems—banking, telecom, fintech, healthcare, etc. But with the current trend leaning so much toward JavaScript and modern web frameworks, I’m curious about the future relevance of Java in the next few years (2026 and beyond). More on reddit.com

The article has some errors. And not the throwable kind, heh: If not found, it unwinds the method-call stack looking for the closest catch block that can handle the exception. If not found, the JVM terminates with a suitable message. You can see this action in Listing 1. The part in italics is incorrect! What happens if there is no catch block that is suitable is that the thread exits and passes the exception that was never caught to the thread's uncaught exception handler. And that's that. The thread is done. By default, each thread starts with an uncaught exception handler that simply prints the exception to syserr (e.printStackTrace(); - that's the whole body, that's all). At no point does it ever exit a JVM. Of course, if you have a java app that never starts any threads, then the main thread is the only relevant thread, and if that exits due to an exception bubbling all the way up, yeah, sure, the JVM then exits as no non-daemon threads are running. But it feels ridiculous to handwave this away as 'oh we are just trying to keep it simple'. "The thread dies" is just as simple and much more accurate. You can invoke printStackTrace() directly, typically from a catch block. For example, consider a second version of the PrintStackTraceDemo application. This entire article keeps making pointless and misleading sidenotes. For example, it sidenotes 'you can also call printStackTrace(somePrintWriter) which is weird to mention; anybody can look at the API docs and discover this, and it's not like they're covering the entire API here. It's like I'm pointing out all the interesting aspects of the Mona Lisa and then casually remark: "Oh, look, someone dropped a candy wrapper over there. Anyway, moving right along..." - it's just bizarre to mention this. It strongly insinuates that this is important. And that then blows up thoroughly in the quoted section: Newbies are legendary in writing catch blocks with e.printStackTrace(); in it which is a massive anti-pattern that is difficult to eradicate. And this blog post is making it worse by using it as a way to explain that you can invoke printStackTrace yourself (not an important lesson!) without explaining that you shouldn't do that or that this contrived example shouldn't be taken as an insinuation of: "Ah, and this is how you write your standard catch block". Try-with-resources Another example that is fucking horrible. You don't deal with IOExceptions thrown by close() methods by ignoring them!! streams buffer. Any exception thrown by a close() method means the entire write operation has likely failed. If you treat them differently than any exception that would have been thrown by the most recent write call you wrote a hard-to-test for bug (i.e: A really really bad bug). But that isn't obvious here. It's again teaching extremely bad patterns. Listing 8. Copy.java No, the right way to deal with exceptions thrown here is to just declare your main method as throws Exception which you should almost always do. Writing a catch block that tosses most of the useful info in the garbage (as in this snippet, the exception's type which might be FileAccessDeniedException or whatnot - the key info, you toss that away!), then just writes something and blindly continues with the app is ON ERROR RESUME NEXT level stupidity. Common stupidity, but that shouldn't be an excuse. On the contrary, given that the common-ness has proven that your average new java programmer will readily misunderstand, you should go out of your way not to perpetuate this mistake. As is, this article should be torched with a flamethrower: If you send this to new java programmers and they read it, they'll be stupider after having read it than before. The article is fixable though. Come up with less 'actively perpetuating really stupid anti-patterns' examples, stop trying to be opinion-less (because the chosen examples and focus invoke an opinion, whether you intended it or not, and right now it's invoking the wrong ones), and cut some of the irrelevant chaff such as how to make your own stack trace (not relevant for an intro article in any way and actively misleads in suggesting that it is somehow an important tool one should be using often) and mentioning irrelevant parts of the API. More on reddit.com

Usually I either have ugly inline try catch blocks, a private method doing the same, or I make sure the method I call only uses unchecked exceptions - but it’s not ideal and and unfortunately a posterbook example of Java's design. More on reddit.com