In my current development task, I want to validate whether a string is in JSON format or not. When I checked for solutions from resources like StackOverflow I saw many of answers are as below,

   JsonParser parser = new JsonParser();
catch(JsonSyntaxException jse){
  System.out.println("Not a valid Json String:"+jse.getMessage());

According to my knowledge, we are using try-catch to avoid terminating the program from exceptions.

According to the above solutions, I feel like I'm going to generate exceptions and from that and then validate my string.

Furthermore, the program pseudocode below is better than using a try-catch block,

if(string is JSON){
 // do this

// do this


Based on comments

Actually, my question is like this

Let's assume there is a zero divide problem

if(input > 0){
 result = number/input
print("inplut not valid")


 result = number/input
print("input is not valid")

my question: which one is good practice?

please correct me if I'm wrong. thanks in advance

  • 1
    What does string is JSON do? Probably a function that tries to parse the string, catches an exception and returning false if parsing fails.
    – Rik D
    Dec 31, 2021 at 9:16
  • @RikD my question is which one is good practice using try-catch or if-else, or there is nothing to worry and my understand is wrong Dec 31, 2021 at 9:19
  • zero divide problem -> if(input > o){ number/input } or try(number/input){ } catch{} Dec 31, 2021 at 9:22
  • @DulangaHeshan Which is good practice may depend on the details. If string is JSON does attempt to parse the string, doing something like if (string is JSON) { parser.parse(string) } is duplicating work and therefore probably bad if this is anywhere near your hot path. If string is JSON works some other way, it could be a good idea. Please include the details in the question as to what string is JSON does. Dec 31, 2021 at 9:29
  • 2
    Be pragmatic about it. When parsing JSON, working with exceptions is likely the easiest way. Dividing by zero depends; by default I would check if input != 0, but if input should never be 0, throwing an exception is fine because then it’s an exceptional situation.
    – Rik D
    Dec 31, 2021 at 9:30

3 Answers 3


The problem here is most probably that your JsonParser does neither have a method isJson, nor does it have a method tryParse (which could avoid the duplicate work which would be involved in first testing for "parsability", and then parse again to get the actual result). So I guess you have no other option than catching the exception. But that's not "wrong" or "bad". Assumed getting a non-valid Json string is an "exceptional" situation (and not the regular case) this looks pretty natural.

In case your JsonParser would provide a tryParse method, it might be a good idea to use it instead of try/catch, since the resulting code would be a little bit shorter. However, to some degree this is still a matter of taste.

One issue with your second example is that in certain programming languages for certain numeric types a "division-by-zero" does not necessarily throw an exception. Some languages have a number representation "Infinity", at least for floating point math.

But let's assume this to be a case where an exception would be thrown, and input be an integer value, not a floating point. Then we see another issue here: the test if(input > 0) is not semantically equivalent to the implicit test done in the try/catch variant (which is if(input != 0)). So the if/else construct allows you to place a different, more strict validation into a single line. If that's what you want or need, the if/else is obviously the more correct choice.

Another thing might be performance: in lots of languages throwing an exception might be more costly than making an explicit test beforehand. However, in cases where a zero denominator occurs seldom, this might be negligible. So in case

  • you want a test for the denominator to be unequal to zero

  • the performance hit of the exception is negligible

it boils down to a matter of taste which construct to use. Note the try/catch might be beneficial in cases where the numerical calculations are more complex and you would have to check more than just one denominator, or multiple lines for validity (assumed you don't want individual treatment for different error situations).

So in short: there is no braindead "one size fits all solution", you have to look at the real individual case, the language, the provided features, the specific requirement, and not at some sloppily written pseudo-code out of context. Make yourself aware of the semantical differences and the performance differences, and then decide which elements to use.

See also: Arguments for or against using Try/Catch as logical operators

  • In general I agree with you in 99.999% but I would say, if there is a chance for TryXXX pattern (i.e. test beforehand) use it always instead of throwing+catching exception simply because of the performance. And even if some case performance is negligible I would still stick to the pattern, because (a) there is no harm (b) and it is a pattern. Ignoring a pattern means somebody else (me including) 5 years later will wonder why I ignored the pattern. Thus it would require adding comments, things get lengthy, and comments tend to be out-of-sync in time. Thus -- TryXXX pattern for me. Jan 1, 2022 at 6:18
  • What if the divisor is not zero, but very very small. and the dividend is large? Overflow results. In general, you can't reasonably check for that beforehand. Well you could, by dividing and seeing if it blows up. :-) Just divide and check the result for an exception or a NaN.
    – user949300
    Jan 2, 2022 at 5:10
  • 1
    @user949300: assuming we are looking at a case where an exception is most sensible when "input" is an integer, not a float. But actually, your comment is supporting what I wrote: it makes not much sense to discuss this things out of context, when not even the number type is clear.
    – Doc Brown
    Jan 2, 2022 at 11:15
  • Dividing by zero isn't infinity since the left handed limit doesn't equal the right handed one, so I don't think any languages treat it this way.
    – Natecat
    Dec 3, 2023 at 5:33

If testing for proper input is simple, e.g. "is the input string non-null and non-empty", you should generally test the input.

If testing for proper input is difficult, then try / catch is perfectly fine. Imagine writing a regular expression for proper JSON. I think it's impossible - some Comp Sci Ph.D. could explain. Testing for a valid number that might be in scientific notation? Or a possible Date and Time? That is possible, but still a lot of work.

When testing for proper input format is this difficult, don't spend your time and effort on possibly buggy validation code - just try to parse it, with robust, well documented, and tested library code. And then deal with any thrown errors.

The question of where the catch should be is always challenging. It depends. But, unlike your (I know, contrived) code, the catch should almost never just print (or log) something and continue.

  • 1
    "imagine writing a regular expression for proper JSON" if you pick the wrong tool for the job no wonder you cannot achieve the goal. JSONs are not processed using regexes no matter try/catch or not. Jan 2, 2022 at 6:27

It's not a great use of try catch.

If you are using exceptions you want to allow them to bubble up to the top layer of the program, where you can handle them in a generic handler to output an error message or log.


          //program loop
          console.WriteLine("Error: " + e.Message);

For validation you really want to have a boolean function to call.

bool ValidateJson(string json);

or better yet a list of errors

List<ValidationError> ValidateJson(string json);

so you can do conditional logic

       //parse json and do stuff
       //prompt user to fix json rather than erroring the entire program

Obviously you can use try catch for conditional logic, but its less efficient and not as nice.

  • 3
    You don't always want them to bubble up to the top. It depends on whether the call site can handle the issue or not.
    – siride
    Dec 31, 2021 at 13:24
  • bubbling up is kind of the point of exceptions though. Thats why it's considered an antipattern if you are using them for conditionals. Sure its slow as well, but its more that you aren't following the pattern they are designed for
    – Ewan
    Dec 31, 2021 at 15:59
  • My point isn't that they shouldn't bubble up, but rather that they should bubble up only to where they need to. Your advice is good in that it prevents people from swallowing exceptions at a low level. However, like any rules of thumb, there are exceptions (no pun intended) and if you don't understand the purpose of the rule, you'll miss those. If you can handle an exception locally (not just logging), then you absolutely should. But if you can't, it's okay to let it bubble up.
    – siride
    Dec 31, 2021 at 16:15
  • 1
    In the case of JSON parsing, the code that calls the parser can probably handle the exception. It can package it into a more general error, or it can use a fallback, or even return null (maybe we don't care if the JSON parses -- it's just a best effort). The other thing about JSON parsing is that it can be computationally expensive and the error may be deeply nested in the parsing process. Exceptions are ideal here as they short circuit the process. Also, you don't want to try to parse twice (once to check validity, the second to convert to data structures).
    – siride
    Dec 31, 2021 at 16:17
  • Thus, the best approach here is to try to parse and if that fails, catch the exception (or let it bubble, if that makes sense), rather than checking validity first. This is similar to patterns for file operations. Don't check if file doesn't exist before trying to create it, because it could be created in between the check and the creation. Just try to create it and then handle exception (which might entail trying a new filename, or whatever).
    – siride
    Dec 31, 2021 at 16:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.