I think a lot of programs would be better if they just continue on unhandled exceptions rather than halt. Including Windows. What do you all think of this.
>>1
That's the preferred industry-standard enterprise scalable best-practice design pattern business solution in the Java world.
>>6
Java? No thanks. Even though compiling is way uglier and libraries are a bazaar and a mess (esp. due to the lame standard), I'll take a C-based system such a UNIX over a Java-based one. And ideally, I'll take a Python, Lisp or Smalltalk one over that.
>>14
This is correct, but I feel bad for reading it coming from a MSDN blog and general Microsoft shiite. Anyways, if IsBadWritePtr should be called CrashProgramRandomly, what would we call iexplore.exe? RapeMyGapingSecurityHole.exe?
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-04 13:22
It's called C and not checking the return code. It usually doesn't work out very well.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-05 21:52
Every time I've written a program and just ignored unhandled exceptions all has been well. I've designed entire websites, such as www.myspace.com utilizing this principle, and its worked out fine. To quote a meme from this fine board, NO EXCEPTIONS
>>17
You obviously haven't written very complicated programs with all this exception ignoring. The problems with unhandled exceptions are well documented and without source code you are not special.
>>24
enjoy your inability to do anything useful on your OS that only executes trusted code, since any code that isn't part of the OS should be untrusted.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 19:44
>>25
"Untrusted" means "code of completely unknown provenance that probably just wandered in from the network."
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 20:15
>>26
that's what any code that isn't part of the OS is to an OS developer.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 20:17
what's html?
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 23:11
>>27
No one cares what you "OS developers" think, Anonix faggot.