[yatac42]

An important difference between your add method and binary search is that the signature of your add method already implies the contract that the sum of the two integers must fit into an int because there simply is no correct value of the specified return type that could be returned otherwise.

There's nothing about the signature of an ordinary binary search method that would imply that it only works for arrays that have less than MAX_INT/2 elements.

[rustybolt]

True, but you can make the same case for the addition operator which might have a type annotation somewhere, but it's certainly not visible to most programmers.

Simply put, in many languages there is no addition operator which does mathematically correct addition and that is a sad state of affairs.

[adrian_b]

This is a modern phenomenon.

In the first few decades of electronic computers and programming languages, having an addition or any other arithmetic operation that would not signal correctly the overflow exceptions would have been considered as completely unacceptable.

Computers without the right hardware implementation appeared initially among the so-called minicomputers and microcomputers, i.e. the cheapest computers, which initially were intended for things like industrial control or peripherals for larger computers, where it was supposed that competent programmers will take care to use appropriate workarounds for the hardware limitations.

Unfortunately, this kind of implementation of the arithmetic operations, without appropriate means for detecting overflows, intended initially only for the cheapest products, has spread over the years to all CPUs.

Even if from time to time there are news about some horror story caused by a combination of weak hardware with the lack of appropriate software checks, it appears that there is no hope that this unfortunate hardware design fashion will ever be reversed.

[thaumasiotes]

> Simply put, in many languages there is no addition operator which does mathematically correct addition and that is a sad state of affairs.

I read a book on Clojure when it was fairly new containing a spirited defense of the fact that arithmetic operators like + and - always returned the correct result. This was slower, because they needed to do bounds checking, but the result was always correct. If you wanted faster arithmetic with bugs, you'd use the explicit operators +. or -. (or *. or, presumably, /. -- I'm not sure how division was handled).

Shortly after that, Clojure reversed its policy and + will give you fast addition with bugs.

[JonChesterfield]

None, I think. Best case you have somewhat graceful handling on out of memory, but that handling isn't going to give you the result of the addition.