Is exception handling always expensive?

Question

I've been told time and again that exception handling for operations like determining type is bad form since exceptions are always computationally expensive. Nevertheless, I've seen posts (especially Python-related ones, such as the to reply of this one) that advise using exception handling for exactly that purpose.

I was wondering, then, if throwing and catching exceptions is to be avoided universally, because it is always computationally expensive, or whether some languages, such as Python, handle exceptions better and it is permissible to use exception handling more liberally.

Well, usually in Python you have much more performance issues in other areas that expenses of exceptions aren't that important :) — user3159253, Feb 08 '14 at 06:41
Similar question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6092992/why-is-it-easier-to-ask-forgiveness-than-permission-in-python-but-not-in-java — Ferdinand Beyer, Feb 08 '14 at 06:49

score 7 · Accepted Answer · answered Feb 08 '14 at 06:46

You cannot give general advice such as "exceptions are expensive and therefore they should be avoided" for all programming languages.

As you suspected, in Python, Exceptions are used more liberally than in other languages such as C++. Instead of raw performance, Python puts emphasis on code readability. There is an idiom "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission", meaning: It's easier to just attempt what you want to achieve and catch an exception than check for compatibility first.

Forgiveness:

try:
    do_something_with(dict["key"])
except (KeyError, TypeError):
    # Oh well, there is no "key" in dict, or it has the wrong type

Permission:

if hasattr(dict, "__getitem__") and "key" in dict:
    do_something_with(dict["key"])
else:
    # Oh well

Actually, in Python, iteration with for loops is implemented with exceptions under the hood: The iterable raises a StopIteration exception when the end is reached. So even if you try to avoid exceptions, you will use them anyway all the time.

score 2 · Answer 2 · edited Feb 08 '14 at 07:00

I think a lot of it comes down to specific use cases.

In the example you posted, the poster explicitly refers to the "duck-typing" aspect of Python. Essentially, you use the exceptions generated to determine if a variable has a particular capability or set of capabilities instead of manually checking (since Python allows a lot of dynamic operations, a class might access "split" through __getattr__, which makes it impossible to check using a standard if statement, so you try to use split, then if it can't do it, we go to plan B).

In a lot of Python applications, also, we tend not to worry a lot about some of the performance details that might matter in other applications, so any overhead from exceptions is "trivial."

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Nov 08 '15 at 17:17

In coding my module tco, I encountered this question. In the version 1.0.1alpha, I emplemented three versions of the same class. The module is intended for computational purpose; thus I think I may give some answer to your question.

Computing quick operations by embedding them in the class working without exceptions was twice as quick as with the two classes working with exception. But you have to know that such a test may be meaningless if you think that computing interesting things between the exceptions will make the difference become very tiny. Nobody will seriously care about the difference of time between an empty loop and an empty system raising and catching exceptions!

For that reason, I decided to remove the first system when releasing the 1.1 version of my module. Though a little slower, I found that the system relying on exceptions was more robust and I focused on it.

Is exception handling always expensive?

3 Answers3