Using try/catch for preventing app from crashes

Of course, there are always exceptions to rules, but if you need a rule of thumb - then you are correct; empty catch blocks are "absolutely" bad practice.

Let's have a closer look, first starting with your specific example:

try {  View view = findViewById(R.id.toolbar);}catch(Exception e) { }

So, a reference to something is created; and when that fails ... it doesn't matter; because that reference isn't used in the first place! The above code is absolutely useless line noise. Or does the person who wrote that code initially assume that a second, similar call would magically no longer throw an exception?!

Maybe this was meant to look like:

try {  View view = findViewById(R.id.toolbar);  ... and now do something with that view variable ...}catch(Exception e) { }

But again, what does this help?! Exceptions exist to communicate respectively propagate error situations within your code. Ignoring errors is rarely a good idea. Actually, an exception can be treated in ways like:

• You give feedback to the user; (like: "the value you entered is not a string, try again"); or to engage in more complex error handling
• Maybe the problem is somehow expected and can be mitigated (for example by giving a "default" answer when some "remote search" failed)
• ...

Long story short: the minimum thing that you do with an exception is to log/trace it; so that when you come in later debugging some problem you understand "OK, at this point in time that exception happened".

And as others have pointed out: you also avoid catching for Exception in general (well, depending on the layer: there might be good reasons to have some catch for Exception, and even some kinds of Errors at the highest level, to make sure that nothing gets lost; ever).

Finally, let's quote Ward Cunningham:

You know you are working with clean code when each routine you read turns out to be pretty much what you expected. You can call it beautiful code when the code also makes it look like the language was made for the problem.

Let that sink in and meditate about it. Clean code does not surprise you. The example you are showing to us surprises everybody looking at.

Update, regarding the update that the OP asks about

try {  do something}catch(Exception e) {   print stacktrace}

Same answer: doing that "all over the place" is also bad practice. Because this code is also surprising the reader.

The above:

• Prints error information somewhere. It is not at all guaranteed that this "somewhere" resembles a reasonable destination. To the contrary. Example: within the application I am working with, such calls would magically appear in our trace buffers. Depending on context, our application might pump tons and tons of data into those buffers sometimes; making those buffer prune every few seconds. So "just printing errors" often translates to: "simply loosing all such error information".
• Then: you don't do try/catch because you can. You do it because you understand what your code is doing; and you know: I better have a try/catch here to do the right thing (see the first parts of my answer again).

So, using try/catch as "pattern" like you are showing; is as said: still not a good idea. And yes, it prevents crashes; but leads to all kind of "undefined" behavior. You know, when you just catch an exception instead of properly dealing with it; you open a can of worms; because you might run into myriads of follow-on errors that you later don't understand. Because you consumed the "root cause" event earlier on; printed it somewhere; and that somewhere is now gone.

From the Android documentation:

Let's entitle it as -

Don't Catch Generic Exception

It can also be tempting to be lazy when catching exceptions and do something like this:

try {    someComplicatedIOFunction();        // may throw IOException    someComplicatedParsingFunction();   // may throw ParsingException    someComplicatedSecurityFunction();  // may throw SecurityException    // phew, made it all the way} catch (Exception e) {                 // I'll just catch all exceptions    handleError();                      // with one generic handler!}

In almost all cases it is inappropriate to catch generic Exception or Throwable (preferably not Throwable because it includes Error exceptions). It is very dangerous because it means that Exceptions you never expected (including RuntimeExceptions like ClassCastException) get caught in application-level error handling.

It obscures the failure handling properties of your code, meaning if someone adds a new type of Exception in the code you're calling, the compiler won't help you realize you need to handle the error differently.

Alternatives to catching generic Exception:

• Catch each exception separately as separate catch blocks after a single try. This can be awkward but is still preferable to catching all Exceptions.
  Edit by author: This one is my choice. Beware repeating too much code in the catch blocks. If you are using Java 7 or above, use multi-catch to avoid repeating the same catch block.
• Refactor your code to have more fine-grained error handling, with multiple try blocks. Split up the IO from the parsing, handle errors separately in each case.
• Re-throw the exception. Many times you don't need to catch the exception at this level anyway, just let the method throw it.

In most cases you shouldn't be handling different types of exception the same way.

^{Formatting / paragraphing slightly modified from the source for this answer.}

P.S. Don't be afraid of Exceptions!! They are friends!!!

It's definitely a bad programming practice.

From the current scenario, if there are hundreds of try catch like this, then you won't even know where the exception occurs without debugging the application, which is a nightmare if your application is in production environment.

But you can include a logger so that you get to know when an exception is throws (and why). It won't change your normal workflow.

...try {    View view = findViewById(R.id.toolbar);}catch(Exception e){    logger.log(Level.SEVERE, "an exception was thrown", e);}...