We Keep Coding

Kotlin ignoring CheckedException leads to potential bug source

The following method will warn about IOException if called in Java code but will simply ignore any warning in Kotlin because IOException is a checked exception.
ParcelFileDescriptor.open(file, ParcelFileDescriptor.MODE_READ_WRITE)
Java forces developers to take safe action in case it throws an exception but in Kotlin it just overlooks the exception creating a potential bug source. I'm quite sure there are lots of similar cases where checked exception is simply ignored.
The question is how to handle such cases?

Java will not warn you if method is throwing unchecked exception, how are you handling this case? The best you can do here is to check java doc or the source of the calling method to see if it throws any exceptions. Or just to catch any exception somewhere in your code which calls this method.
If you are asking why Kotlin doesn't have checked exceptions unlike java, the official Kotlin docs about exceptions provides an explanation why they decided to move away from checked exceptions. Quote:
Examination of small programs leads to the conclusion that requiring exception specifications could both enhance developer productivity and enhance code quality, but experience with large software projects suggests a different result – decreased productivity and little or no increase in code quality.
UPD: Article by kotlin lang architect about this matter: https://elizarov.medium.com/kotlin-and-exceptions-8062f589d07

Kotlin doesn't prevent you from catching any or all exceptions; it just doesn't force you to do so, like Java does.
So you can still do e.g.:
try {
ParcelFileDescriptor.open(file, ParcelFileDescriptor.MODE_READ_WRITE)
} catch (x: IOException) {
// …
}
As for how you know that the method could throw an IOException… that's tricky.  If it's a Java method, then of course its JavaDoc will specify it (and you can see that from your IDE).  But if it's Kotlin, well, the documentation might say; or if you have the source code, you could check that.  But I'm afraid there's no real way to know!  All you can do is guess — and ensure that you catch all exceptions at critical points.
Treating all exceptions as unchecked is not without controversy; see this long-running discussion.
There are clearly a few situations where Java-style checked exceptions would be impractical: for example, when calling lambdas or function references.  (Java itself forces you to handle or wrap checked exceptions in such cases, which can be unwieldy.)  For big programs which cover multiple layers of abstraction, there's the problem of exceptions bubbling up to a point where they make little sense; the usual solution there is exception translation: catching them and rethrowing more appropriate ones.  And there's also the problem that too many bad developers simply catch all exceptions and ignore them (or, at best, log them) without considering how or where they should be handled.
But you might well think that dropping all exception checking is throwing the baby out with the bathwater…
(I've suggested that Kotlin should do exception inference — working out which uncaught exceptions a method could throw, and assuming a #Throws declaration for them — which would solve most of the problems around knowing which exceptions could be thrown at any point, without requiring them to be caught or invalidating any existing code.  But I'm probably failing to see some problems around that, because while it seems an obviously good idea to me, it hasn't been well received…)

Using exception classes to model errors

I want to know whether it would be right to use exception classes as regular classes to handle application errors (just regular controlled errors, not exceptional ones), without throwing them with the proper language clause (eg. instantiating them and returning them from a method). I've been discussing this topic recently with some colleges and I think that exceptions should only be used as exceptions, but I'd like to listen to more opinions.

What you mean by "controlled error" is actually known by the name checked exception.
"Exceptional exceptions" are known as unchecked exceptions.
The difference is explained here: Checked vs Unchecked exception
So, you see: Java comes with a built-in mechanism to distinguish between
exceptions caused by programming mistakes (e.g. NullPointerException when passing unexpected null as an argument) -- unchecked exceptions
versus anticipated exceptions that should be handled by the caller (e.g. IOException when some kind of I/O went wrong) -- checked exceptions
Returning instances of Exception (or any subclass) would be considered a misuse in virtually all circumstances.
You could ask your colleague how he/she would implement an exceptional outcome of a method with this signature:
public String createStringOrFailWithException();
Returning an Exception? Certainly not, because this requires a different return type.
Throwing the exception instead allows you to keep the return type, and to benefit from vast exception handling capabilities, including finally blocks and try-with-resources statements, to give only two examples that you don't want (should not) implement by yourself.

I suggest keeping Exceptions "exceptional". I.e. don't build them into your app logic. Use more meaningful things like a ActionXResponse class etc that could indicate failure, and even have an Exception as a property which the controller could check for "controlled exceptions". It's much more meaningful when you have your own class as a response.
Another guideline I'd suggest, along with keeping Exceptions "exceptional" is to avoid checked Exceptions (compile-time).

Is there an advantage to wrapping exceptions with Custom exception types in Java

I have a class XYZ whose public functions throw Exceptions.
I have been advised that all public functions exposed by XYZ should throw exceptions called XYZDataException or XYZSystemException. So even if I get other exceptions within the public methods they need to be wrapped by these XYZExceptions.
I have a couple of questions:
What is the advantage of wrapping exceptions with XYZException?
What is the advantage of differentiating between System and Data exceptions?
To me it feels right to just throw whatever exception occurs without wrapping it further.

A lot of Exception handling depends on how you plan on extending it later on. For example, if developer B came along and wanted to modify some of your code, it would be a lot easier if he understand what Exception meant what in which case. In that case, having specific Exceptions makes more sense.
As to breaking up System and Data exceptions - a Data exception would basically be something that should be non-fatal that occurs because of bad data. A System exception would be because your System failed in some way. Again, this all points to how you want to use it later on. If you want to use your code solely, and you don't care about how your exceptions come back out, then by all means, go with what is easiest at the time.
I have found that when working with other developers on a project, it is a lot easier for them to grasp what is going on when you subclass your Exceptions and throw them in specific cases.
Hope this helps!

Yes, it means they can be explicitly caught by code that knows how to handle them.
for instance, imagine you had:
class MyRecoverableException extends Exception {
...
}
You could then have code that can differentiate between them automatically, and react accordingly, such as:
try{
// ... do something ...
}catch(MyRecoverableException e) {
// Recover
}catch(Throwable t) {
// Log fatal reason, and exit gracefully.
}
Obviously how many you need is a problem to be solved by you, the application developer, but a clean separation can make all the difference when working out what went wrong, and subclassed exceptions can hold additional properties, used to pass pertinent information to handlers about the exceptional circumstances that brought them about.
Having a base type to extend from for your application/library never hurts either - if for no other reason than to allow separation of source when logging - but the exact hierarchy and complexity required beyond that depends entirely on the project. Some designs have natural and obvious choices, some require a bit more forethought (and occasionally a bit of afterthought and refactoring).

As usual, "it depends". As a general rule it does not make sense to blindly create an exception hierarchy on a per-class basis. App-specific exceptions should group exceptions in a way meaningful to that particular app, so there might be a top-level exception, then sub-classed exceptions for things like the data layer, communication layer, utilities, whatever.
The advantage is that higher levels dealing with those exceptions are not exposed to the implementation details that generate those exceptions. Also, perhaps to a lessor degree, exceptions may be grouped more meaningfully (is it relevant that it was an IOException, or is it enough to know there was a problem writing to whatever output store you're using).
Another great advantage is that app-specific information may be captured in the custom exceptions. Things like user IDs, account numbers, etc.--any application state--which must be stored as part of a string message in a "stock" exception may be assigned to a property. This may avoid random parsing issues if you actually do anything with the exceptions or try to trace through a particular event stream.

According to msdn:
To wrap an exception, you specify it as the inner exception of a new exception and then throw the new exception. This practice should be used only in situations where the original exception is not meaningful to the person who receives the exception, or the call stack for the exception is misleading or uninteresting.

Suppose method M1 is documented as throwing an exception of type X when some condition occurs. M1 calls method M2, which happens to throw an exception of type X which M1 is not prepared to handle. If M1 doesn't catch the exception from M2, the caller is unlikely to figure out that the exception thrown out of M1 isn't an X thrown by M1, but is instead an X thrown by M2, and its practical meaning and implications may be very different. Having M1 throw an exception of a type which will never be thrown by M2 may avoid this issue (though there could still be trouble if M2 could call M1 on some other object).

Curious: Why is the "throws <SomeSpecific>Exception" syntax required in Java alone?

We all know it is needed.
But WHY is it needed in Java alone, when other similar languages that have exception handling capablities don't require us to write "throws Exception"? Is there anyone who knows what was happening when Java language was designed and why they made it that way? Just curious.
P.S. This may not be a practical or really necessary question - it might not help me in anyway with my ongoing projects. But certain language features kindle my curiosity :D
Edit
Looks like my question was very vague! I think I worded the question wrongly. We need to use the "throws Exception" kind of syntax at some points during programming when dealing with Java code. But something like that is never needed in C# or C++ or even VB.Net and PHP. So why Java alone insists on this?

As other answers here have pointed out, the throws clause is only required for checked exceptions, which is a feature that currently only exists in Java.
The official answer as to why Java has checked exceptions is well documented:
Why did the designers decide to force
a method to specify all uncaught
checked exceptions that can be thrown
within its scope? Any Exception that
can be thrown by a method is part of
the method's public programming
interface. Those who call a method
must know about the exceptions that a
method can throw so that they can
decide what to do about them. These
exceptions are as much a part of that
method's programming interface as its
parameters and return value.
However, this decision is highly controversial, even within the Java community:
Recently, several well-regarded
experts, including Bruce Eckel and Rod
Johnson, have publicly stated that
while they initially agreed completely
with the orthodox position on checked
exceptions, they've concluded that
exclusive use of checked exceptions is
not as good an idea as it appeared at
first, and that checked exceptions
have become a significant source of
problems for many large projects.
Eckel takes a more extreme view,
suggesting that all exceptions should
be unchecked; Johnson's view is more
conservative, but still suggests that
the orthodox preference for checked
exceptions is excessive. (It's worth
noting that the architects of C#, who
almost certainly had plenty of
experience using Java technology,
chose to omit checked exceptions from
the language design, making all
exceptions unchecked exceptions. They
did, however, leave room for an
implementation of checked exceptions
at a later time.)
Personally, I find checked exceptions to be useful only when your API makes a habit of catching all exceptions and re-throwing them as something appropriate to your abstraction layer. For example, an in-memory object cache that happens to use a disk or SQL backend to cache data should never throw IOException or SQLException -- instead, it should throw (and declare) some user-defined exception like CacheFailureException or similar.
Also, you might find Ned Batchelder's article Exceptions in the Rainforest illuminating in regard to this question.

It declares that the method can raise an exception, and allows developers and their tools to ensure that they have considered that possibility.
However, the question is imprecise. The declaration is only required when the exception is a "checked" exception. And then, a more specific type of exception should be declared. Throwing a java.lang.Exception is poor style.
Runtime exceptions, that is, exceptions raised by the runtime when specific bugs are encountered, are not required to be declared. Runtime exceptions should be thrown when the error can be prevented by better programming, and doesn't depend on environmental conditions at runtime.

There are two types of exceptions
Checked Exceptions
UnChecked Exceptions
The throws clause tells which checked Exceptions are thrown by the method so that the caller can handle these in the code or they would have to add the throws clause so that in the end someone will have to handle these exceptions.

Java does not require you to write throws Exception on a function declaration, so it is not "needed" in general. It requires you to declare the exceptions that may be thrown by the function, which might be no exceptions at all, or just runtime exceptions. Indeed, using throws Exception is probably a sign of lazy coding, as it acts as an uninformative catch-all.
edit — well now that you've edited your question, the answer you're looking for (as others have said) is that Java has the concept of "checked" exceptions. It was simply a design decision, to supposedly improve code quality. It probably doesn't really help much in the long run; you can't fix a bad coder with a language trick.

Java is a very organized language which prevents in many situations the unexperient user from missing something relevant or of importance, at least so that errors can be displayed later with a good hint or explanation for what is missing. Forcing you to mention the exceptions on a function/method declaration is a way to keep with that politics and at the same time a way to allow you to define your own specific exceptions and putting them to use.

The point of declaring exceptions in Java was to force the programmer to handle the errors that can arise when executing the program. However, experience showed that in a lot of cases, programmers' "handling" of exceptions did not really handle the exceptions but instead ignored them:
void writeToFile() {
try {
...
} catch (IOException ex) {
// Nothing here
}
}
So in languages more recent than Java the designers preferred not to check exceptions, so that programs without error checking would at least crash with a meaningful stack trace, so you would have a bug easy to debug instead of your program "misteriously" malfunctioning.
Personally I like checked exceptions in Java because:
I do not mishandle exceptions.
Exceptions make me be aware of possible problems that my code could have.
Code is better documented that way.
but I can understand unchecked exceptions. Most of the time I handle an exception is to log it, wrap it with some subclass of RuntimeException and rethrow, because they could only be caused by bugs / misconfiguration / broken deployment. I like to use checked exceptions only for business rule violations.

As I have understood the rationale as put forward by the Java designers, the error situations are generally put in two categories:
Those that are non-fatal and the calling code with good reason should be able to recover from. FileNotFoundException when reading form files, and IOExceptions when working with sockets.
Those that are fatal if they cannot with good reason be expected by the calling code. This includes ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException and ArithmeticException (when dividing by zero).

In Java, when should I create a checked exception, and when should it be a runtime exception? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last year and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Possible Duplicate:
When to choose checked and unchecked exceptions
When should I create a checked exception, and when should I make a runtime exception?
For example, suppose I created the following class:
public class Account {
private float balance;
/* ... constructor, getter, and other fields and methods */
public void transferTo(Account other, float amount) {
if (amount > balance)
throw new NotEnoughBalanceException();
/* ... */
}
}
How should I create my NotEnoughBalanceException? Should it extend Exception or RuntimeException? Or should I just use IllegalArgumentException instead?

There's a LOT of disagreement on this topic. At my last job, we ran into some real issues with Runtime exceptions being forgotten until they showed up in production (on agedwards.com), so we resolved to use checked exceptions exclusively.
At my current job, I find that there are many who are for Runtime exceptions in many or all cases.
Here's what I think: Using CheckedExceptions, I am forced at compile time to at least acknowledge the exception in the caller. With Runtime exceptions, I am not forced to by the compiler, but can write a unit test that makes me deal with it. Since I still believe that the earlier a bug is caught the cheaper it is to fix it, I prefer CheckedExceptions for this reason.
From a philosophical point of view, a method call is a contract to some degree between the caller and the called. Since the compiler enforces the types of parameters that are passed in, it seems symmetrical to let it enforce the types on the way out. That is, return values or exceptions.
My experience tells me that I get higher quality, that is, code that JUST WORKS, when I'm using checked exceptions. Checked exceptions may clutter code, but there are techniques to deal with this. I like to translate exceptions when passing a layer boundary. For example, if I'm passing up from my persistence layer, I would like to convert an SQL exception to a persistence exception, since the next layer up shouldn't care that I'm persisting to a SQL database, but will want to know if something could not be persisted. Another technique I use is to create a simple hierarchy of exceptions. This lets me write cleaner code one layer up, since I can catch the superclass, and only deal with the individual subclasses when it really matters.

In general, I think the advice by Joshua Bloch in Effective Java best summarises the answer to your question: Use checked expections for recoverable conditions and runtime exceptions for programming errors (Item 58 in 2nd edition).
So in this case, if you really want to use exceptions, it should be a checked one. (Unless the documentation of transferTo() made it very clear that the method must not be called without checking for sufficient balance first by using some other Account method - but this would seem a bit awkward.)
But also note Items 59: Avoid unnecessary use of checked exceptions and 57: Use exceptions only for exceptional conditions. As others have pointed out, this case may not warrant an exception at all. Consider returning false (or perhaps a status object with details about what happened) if there is not enough credit.

When to use checked exceptions? Honestly? In my humble opinion... never. I think it's been about 6 years since I last created a checked exception.
You can't force someone to deal with an error. Arguably it makes code worse not better. I can't tell you the number of times I've come across code like this:
try {
...
} catch (IOException e) {
// do nothing
}
Whereas I have countless times written code like this:
try {
...
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new RuntimeExceptione(e);
}
Why? Because a condition (not necessarily IOException; that's just an example) wasn't recoverable but was forced down my throat anyway and I am often forced to make the choice between doing the above and polluting my API just to propagate a checked exception all the way to the top where it's (rightlfully) fatal and will be logged.
There's a reason Spring's DAO helper classes translate the checked SQLException into the unchecked DataAccessException.
If you have things like lack of write permissions to a disk, lack of disk space or other fatal conditions you want to be making as much noise as possible and the way to do this is with... unchecked exceptions (or even Errors).
Additionally, checked exceptions break encapsulation.
This idea that checked exceptions should be used for "recoverable" errors is really pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.
Checked exceptions in Java were an experiment... a failed experiment. We should just cut our losses, admit we made a mistake and move on. IMHO .Net got it right by only having unchecked exceptions. Then again it had the second-adopter advantage of learning from Java's mistakes.

IMHO, it shouldn't be an exception at all. An exception, in my mind, should be used when exceptional things happen, and not as flow controls.
In your case, it isn't at all an exceptional status that someone tries to transfer more money than the balance allows. I figure these things happen very often in the real world. So you should program against these situations. An exception might be that your if-statement evaluates the balance good, but when the money is actually being subtracted from the account, the balance isn't good anymore, for some strange reason.
An exception might be that, just before calling transferTo(), you checked that the line was open to the bank. But inside the transferTo(), the code notices that the line isn't open any more, although, by all logic, it should be. THAT is an exception. If the line can't be opened, that's not an exception, that's a plausible situation.
IMHO recap: Exceptions == weird black magic.
being-constructive-edit:
So, not to be all too contradictive, the method itself might very well throw an exception. But the use of the method should be controlled: You first check the balance (outside of the transferTo() method), and if the balance is good, only then call transferTo(). If transferTo() notices that the balance, for some odd reason, isn't good anymore, you throw the exception, which you diligently catch.
In that case, you have all your ducks in a row, and know that there's nothing more you can do (because what was true became false, as if by itself), other than log the exception, send a notification to someone, and tell the customer politely that someone didn't sacrifice their virgins properly during the last full moon, and the problem will be fixed at the first possible moment.
less-enterprisey-suggestion-edit:
If you are doing this for your own pleasure (and the case seems to be this, see comments), I'd suggest returning a boolean instead. The usage would be something like this:
// ...
boolean success = transferTo(otherAccount, ONE_MILLION_DOLLARS_EXCLAMATION);
if (!success) {
UI.showMessage("Aww shucks. You're not that rich");
return; // or something...
} else {
profit();
}
// ...

My rule is
if statements for business logic errors (like your code)
cheched exceptions for environment errors where the application can recover
uncheched exception for environment errors where there is no recovery
Example for checked exception: Network is down for an application that can work offline
Example for uncheched exception: Database is down on a CRUD web application.
There is much documentation on the subject. You can find a lot by browsing the Hibernate
web pages since they changed all exceptions of Hibernate 2.x from checked to unchecked in version 3.x

I recently had a problem with exceptions, code threw NullPointerException and I had no idea why, after some investigation it turned out that real exception was swallowed(it was in new code, so its still being done) and method just returned null. If you do checked exceptions you must understand that bad programmers will just try catch it and ignore exception.

My feeling is that the checked exception is a useful contract that should be used sparingly. The classic example of where I think a checked exception is a good idea is an InterruptedException. My feeling is that I do want to be able to stop a thread / process when I want it to stop, regardless of how long someone has specified to Thread.sleep().
So, trying to answer your specific question, is this something that you absolutely want to make sure that everyone deals with? To my mind, a situation where an Account doesn't have enough money is a serious enough problem that you have to deal with it.
In response to Peter's comment: here's an example using InterruptedException as concrete case of an exception that should be handled and you need to have a useful default handler. Here is what I strongly recommend, certainly at my real job. You should at least do this:
catch (InterruptedException ie) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
That handler will ensure that the code catches the checked exception and does exactly what you want: get this thread to stop. Admittedly, if there's another exception handler / eater upstream, it's not impossible that it will handle the exception less well. Even so, FindBugs can help you find those.
Now, reality sets in: you can't necessarily force everyone who writes an exception handler for your checked exception to handle it well. That said, at least you'll be able to "Find Usages" and know where it is used and give some advice.
Short form: you're inflicting a load the users of your method if you use a checked exception. Make sure that there's a good reason for it, recommend a correct handling method and document all this extensively.

From Unchecked Exceptions -- The Controversy:
If a client can reasonably be expected
to recover from an exception, make it
a checked exception. If a client
cannot do anything to recover from the
exception, make it an unchecked
exception.
Note that an unchecked exception is one derived from RuntimeException and a checked exception is one derived from Exception.
Why throw a RuntimeException if a client cannot do anything to recover from the exception? The article explains:
Runtime exceptions represent problems
that are the result of a programming
problem, and as such, the API client
code cannot reasonably be expected to
recover from them or to handle them in
any way. Such problems include
arithmetic exceptions, such as
dividing by zero; pointer exceptions,
such as trying to access an object
through a null reference; and indexing
exceptions, such as attempting to
access an array element through an
index that is too large or too small.

A checked exception means that clients of your class are forced to deal with it by the compiler. Their code cannot compile unless they add a try/catch block.
The designers of C# have decided that unchecked exceptions are preferred.
Or you can follow the C-style and check return values and not throw exceptions.
Exceptions do have a cost, so they shouldn't be used for control flow, as noted earlier. But the one thing they have going for them is that they can't be ignored.
If you decide that in this case to eschew exceptions, you run the risk that a client of your class will ignore the return value or fail to check the balance before trying to transfer.
I'd recommend an unchecked exception, and I'd give it a descriptive name like InsufficientFundsException to make it quite clear what was going on.

Simply put, use checked exception only as part of external contract for a library, and only if the client wants/needs to catch it. Remember, when using checked exception you are forcing yourself on the caller. With runtime exception, if they are well-documented, you are giving the caller a choice.
It is a known problem that checked exceptions are over-used in Java, but it doesn't mean that they are all bad. That's why it is such in integral part of the Spring philosophy, for example (http://www.springsource.org/about)

The advantage of checked exceptions is that the compiler forces the developer to deal with them earlier. The disadvantage, in my mind anyway, is that developers tend to be lazy and impatient, and stub out the exception-handling code with the intention of coming back and fixing it later. Which, of course, rarely happens.
Bruce Eckel, author of Thinking in Java, has a nice essay on this topic.

I don't think the scenario (insufficient funds) warrants throwing an Exception --- it's simply not exceptional enough, and should be handled by the normal control flow of the program. However, if I really had to throw an exception, I would choose a checked exception, by extending Exception, not RuntimeException which is unchecked. This forces me to handle the exception explicitly (I need to declare it to be thrown, or catch it somewhere).
IllegalArgumentException is a subclass of RuntimeException, which makes it an unchecked exception. I would only consider throwing this if the caller has some convenient way of determining whether or not the method arguments are legal. In your particular code, it's not clear if the caller has access to balance, or whether the whole "check balance and transfer funds" is an atomic operation (if it isn't then the caller really has no convenient way of validating the arguments).
EDIT: Clarified my position on throwing IllegalArgumentException.

Line is not always clear, but for me usually RuntimeException = programming errors, checked exceptions = external errors. This is very rough categorization though. Like others say, checked exceptions force you to handle, or at least think for a very tiny fraction of time, about it.

Myself, I prefer using checked exceptions as I can.
If you are an API Developer (back-end developer), use checked exceptions, otherwise, use Runtime exceptions.
Also note that, using Runtime exceptions in some situations is to be considered a big mistake, for example if you are to throw runtime exceptions from your session beans (see : http://m-hewedy.blogspot.com/2010/01/avoid-throwing-runtimeexception-from.html for more info about the problem from using Runtime excpetions in session beans).