Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6045851
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 23, 20262026-05-23T07:10:14+00:00 2026-05-23T07:10:14+00:00

Suppose I have a library that uses exceptions to indicate success or failure. I

  • 0

Suppose I have a library that uses exceptions to indicate success or failure.

I expect the exceptions to be thrown a lot of times when I try requesting different properties of this library.

Now in .NET, it is said that trying costs nothing, but catching does. (Exception handling cost is in the exceptional case).

Is there a way to tell .NET to put the cost in installing the handler? Like in C++?

Clarifying: the calling code ‘iterates’ over all possible function argument values:

foreach( var enumvalue in Enum.GetValues( MyEnum ) ) {
   try {
      libraryObject.libFunction( enumvalue ); // will probably throw...
   } catch(ArgumentException) {
   }
}

Note: I know this is not a great API. It should be extended in order to iterate over the ‘possible’ values, or to work with return codes. I don’t need answers that restate that.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-23T07:10:15+00:00Added an answer on May 23, 2026 at 7:10 am

    I don’t think there is a way to make exceptions cheap in .net. They build on structured exception handling and that is expensive. So short of rewriting the .net runtime I can’t think of anything to make exception handling cheap. Possibly it’s a bit faster on 64 bit systems since SEH works differently there.

    The correct solution is to refactor the APIs that throw the exceptions to not throw so often. For example by returning status codes. If they are third party code you can’t change, then I have no idea how to improve your performance.

    Or you could write code similar to the one that throws the exception that detects the error conditions beforehand. So you don’t call the API anymore if you know it will throw. While this violates DRY, with third party code this might still be the only viable solution.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Suppose we have a user library project ProjectUserlib that uses an external jar external.jar,
Suppose, I have an opensource project that depends on some library, that must be
Suppose you have a library that provides a method that accepts an object that
Suppose I have a library Common that may be used stand-alone, and is used
Suppose I have a C library that I'm linking into a C++ program on
Suppose I have a class library cl1 and a unit test for it that
Suppose we have a shared library named libtest.so, there is one function foo in
Of course most languages have library functions for this, but suppose I want to
Suppose I have a stringbuilder in C# that does this: StringBuilder sb = new
Suppose I have: Toby Tiny Tory Tily Is there an algorithm that can easily

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.