We Keep Coding

Try Catch Should be used, except it never should?

So I have been doing some research into how I should be doing try-catch-finally blocks and there is some conflicting information in every post I read. Can someone clarify?
One common idea is to not catch exceptions that you do not know what to do with at that point in the code. The exception will bubble up until it presumably gets to a global exception handler if nothing else catches it. So at that point you display a message to the user that an unknown type of exception occurred, log it, etc.
Now after reading it sounds like this is the only exception handler that you will need? You should not be using it for flow control, so you should be checking if something is returned as null or is invalid causing the exception and correcting it in code. ie. testing for null and doing something about it before it can cause the exception.
But then there are other things such as running out of memory that you would not be able to test for, it would just occur during an operation and the exception would be thrown. But I would not be able to do anything about this either so this would be bubbled up to the global handler.
I think there are some that I am missing, like when dealing with files there can be some thrown from the external code. File not found exception seems like one that may come up often, so I would catch it and in the finally block gracefully close down anything I opened related to other code/processing and then notify the user and log it right there?
The only reason why you would want to catch an exception is for the finally part of the block to make sure that whatever you started before the exception is closed/finalized in a known state? But even then you would want to throw this exception after performing these tasks so the user is notified by the global exception handler, there is no point duplicating this code at this point?
So other than a global exception handler you would have try-catch-finally blocks for these scenarios.
So assuming that I am missing something here, there may be the possibility that you want to try and catch a specific type of exception and then do something with it. I cannot think of anything that you would want to do in the catch block though since the global one would log/notify the user and if you have an exception that usually means that there is no deal for the code to continue on.
Is there any easy way to know which exceptions will be thrown from which modules? I think the only way I have read is to read the MSDN or component suppliers documentation, other than that there is no way to know what exception you would be trying to catch if you were looking for a specific one (not sure why you would)
This question came up since in my application I had a section of code in a try-catch block, and it ended up that when an exception occurred it was either because an object was null, or a string was invalid. Once I wrote code to handle those scenarios the try-catch block is no longer needed, if an exception is encountered now there is nothing the code can do to recover so it should be logged and let the user know so it can be fixed.
But this goes against what I have been reading and what has been preached to me, bad code is code with no try-catch blocks. So how does this all tie together and what piece am I missing here?

The first part of your question is all correct: you should only catch exceptions that you know how to handle. Otherwise, just let them bubble up until they reach code that can handle them.
(Note that "handle" doesn't mean "log" or "display an error". It means to correct the problem that caused the exception, or work around it in some way.)
If they never encounter code that can handle them, or if they are unhandlable exceptions (like OutOfMemory), then they will eventually reach the global unhandled exception handler. This is where you will log the exception (if appropriate), display a generic error to the user (if appropriate), and more often than not, terminate the application. You cannot simply continue as if nothing happened—the exception indicates that the application is in an unexpected state. If you try and continue, you're just going to crash, or worse.
I think there are some that I am missing, like when dealing with files there can be some thrown from the external code. File not found exception seems like one that may come up often, so I would catch it and in the finally block gracefully close down anything I opened related to other code/processing and then notify the user and log it right there?
FileNotFound is a good example of an exception that you will want to handle locally. In the same method (or perhaps one level up, in your UI code) that attempts to load the file, you'll have a catch block for FileNotFound exceptions. If appropriate, display a friendly error message to the user and ask them to choose another file. If it's internal code, give up and try something else. Whatever you need to do. There are few good reasons for FileNotFound to bubble up outside of your code.
This is sort of like using exceptions for flow control, but unavoidable. There is no way to avoid using exceptions (or error codes) for I/O, so you just need to handle the failure case. You could try and verify that the file exists first, before trying to open it, but that would not solve the race issue wherein the file gets deleted or becomes otherwise inaccessible between the time your verification code runs and when you actually try and open it. So now all you've done is duplicated your error-handling code in two places, which serves little purpose.
You have to handle exceptions like FileNotFound locally. The further away from the code that throws, the less likely you can do anything reasonable about it.
Another good example of this, aside from I/O-related exceptions, is a NotSupportedException. For example, if you try to call a method that isn't supported, you might get this exception. You will likely want to handle it and have code in the catch block that falls back to a safe alternative.
The only reason why you would want to catch an exception is for the finally part of the block to make sure that whatever you started before the exception is closed/finalized in a known state? But even then you would want to throw this exception after performing these tasks so the user is notified by the global exception handler, there is no point duplicating this code at this point?
This does not require catching the exception. You can have a try block with only a finally block. A catch block is not required. In fact, this is precisely what using statement implements. If you have state that needs to be cleaned up in the event of an exception being thrown, you should implement the IDisposable pattern and wrap usage of that object in a using block.
Is there any easy way to know which exceptions will be thrown from which modules? I think the only way I have read is to read the MSDN or component suppliers documentation, other than that there is no way to know what exception you would be trying to catch if you were looking for a specific one (not sure why you would)
Precisely. This is not really a problem, though, since you are only catching the exceptions that you can do something about. If you don't know that a module can throw a particular exception, you obviously can't have written code that can handle that exception.
The documentation will tell you all of the important exceptions that you might need to handle, like FileNotFound, SecurityException, or what have you.
This question came up since in my application I had a section of code in a try-catch block, and it ended up that when an exception occurred it was either because an object was null, or a string was invalid. Once I wrote code to handle those scenarios the try-catch block is no longer needed, if an exception is encountered now there is nothing the code can do to recover so it should be logged and let the user know so it can be fixed.
Avoiding exceptions in the first place is always the best option. For example, if you can design your application so that a null object or invalid string is impossible, great. That is what we call robust code. In that case, you don't need to catch these exceptions because there's no way that you can handle it. You thought you already handled the problem, so if an exception is getting thrown anyway, it is a sign of a bug. Don't gloss over it with a catch block.
But sometimes, catch blocks are still necessary, and you write code inside of the catch block to handle the problem. In that case, there's probably no reason to re-throw the exception or log it, so you don't have any code duplication.
But this goes against what I have been reading and what has been preached to me, bad code is code with no try-catch blocks. So how does this all tie together and what piece am I missing here?
Completely wrong. I don't know where you've been reading that, but it is nonsense. Exceptions are exceptional conditions. If your code has catch blocks strewn all over it, that is a sign that you are doing it wrong. Either you're using exceptions for flow control, you're swallowing exceptions in a misguided attempt to "improve reliability", or you don't know about the global unhandled exception handler.
Doesn't sound like you're missing anything to me.
The only thing I feel compelled to mention that doesn't fit strictly into any of your questions is that sometimes you might want to catch an exception and rethrow it as a different exception. The most common situation where you would do this is if you were designing a library of re-usable code. Inside of the library, you might catch internal exceptions and, if you cannot handle them, rethrow them as general exceptions. The whole point of a library is encapsulation, so you shouldn't let exceptions bubble up that the caller cannot possibly do anything about.

There is no true guide for exceptions management (raising and handling). Every app has to decide what level of flow control should be used and how exception has to be raised/handled.
General rules are:
exceptions are raised in exceptional situations
handle exception you can handle and do meaningful things for your app so
exception raising can be used in flow control, actually it's the only way you can reliably handle flow control when you are dealing with devices, so hardware interrupts. (printers, bill validators, file transfer...)
The rest is up to you. The meaning of exception management is made by you.

Imagine you need to download some files from an FTP server, one you don't control. Of course you can't trust other people so you need to prepare for temporary outages and such. So you wrap your downloading code in a try-catch-block and look for WebException if you catch one you might check for FtpStatusCode.ActionNotTakenFileUnavailableOrBusy if that was the error you simply retry. Similarly if you call a web service a 404 might be trouble, but a 429 means that you wait a little and retry, because you had been rate-limited.
Usually you can know which exceptions can be thrown by experience or documentation but C# lacks checked exceptions. Things like NullPointerException or ArgumentNullException can be properly handled with guards in your code. But other things, like errors external dependencies can sometimes be caught and handled by you without crashing the application.

Exception Handler Code Snippet

I've been given a task to create a general exception handling code snippet, I have a couple of questions:
Is it a good idea? General exception handling leads to generalized messages as to what's breaking, making tracking hard.Leading to :
What should I include in the snippet? I figure less is more here but adding a log seems to be a good idea because I don't think the exception messages are going to be very specific.

I wouldn't say it's a good idea, no. I tend to have relatively few exception handlers in my code. They're typically there to:
Occasionally convert an exception of one type into another (although that's rarer in C# than in Java; whether it's a good thing or not is a different discussion)
Catch errors at the root of the stack for a particular request / user action / whatever, usually just logging the result
Handle bone-headed APIs which throw exceptions in non-exceptional situations
None of these takes long to write, and none of them comes up so often that it's worth having a common snippet.
Having a set of documented conventions around exception handling - with a discussion of the design in the same document - is a good idea though.

it's better to add specific exception handling and including logs... But, you can add the general exception as well, to catch all unknown exceptions.

Stack traces (to those who can read them) are 90% of what you need. Including the parameters passed into the erroring method will also GREATLY help in debugging. If this is logging to a database, please be careful about logging sensitive pieces of data (PII or PHI).
If this is a web application, I would recommend saving a snapshot of the session as well, this can also help greatly in debugging.

I would recommend you to use Code Contracts and AOP tools like PostSharp. They both provide great possibilities to debug and error-handle your code.

I always use these guidelines as what should be handled by exceptions and what should not. Also, it's hard to get exceptions right.
What I usually end up with is code that has few, if any specific exception handlers, and a global catch-all handler, that just logs the exception (including the stack trace).
That said, when you do use local exception handling, and if the default try.snippet is lacking, something like this might work (just the code included, the rest of the .snippet file is a bit obvious):
try
{
$selected$
}
catch ($caughtExceptionType$Exception ex)
{
$end$
Logger.Error("$message", ex);
//throw new $customExceptionType$Exception("$message", ex);
}

I think that a general exception handler strategy is only applicable at the entry points in the code that you'd like to treat unhandled exceptions. Maybe in a Main method for single-threaded application code or in the AppDomain.UnhandledException event.
Then, the strategy to use is highly application specific. Maybe you have a central log to add the information to, or a message queue that will trigger further processing (e.g., insert in a database and inform an administrator).

What's the best way to handle the exceptions and how to deal with them in asp.net

First, I'm already familiar with the simple exception handling syntax but I'm asking about the best place, the best time and the best way to deal with them.
I'm building an N-Layered application. so I think the DAL will sometime generate some errors to handle .. and I just learned about the SqlException class, what's the deal with that class ? I once saw a code that handles the SqlException then it handles Exception!
After knowing the practice and where I'm going to handle them, I'm planning to create a method to connect to the database and log the errors in a database so I could fix it but still I don't know what information should I collect to allow me identify the whole situation!
I thought exceptions handling was not a big deal. but every now and then I read some strange advices -that I never understood- on the questions comments but no one could answer me since it was some very old questions!
"Don't just explicitly catch
exceptions"
"the code that is used by
higher-layers in your application must
always only throw exceptions and never
worry about how to deal with them."
EDIT
What about Page_Error event and Application_Error .. I saw that they are a good practice for handling errors

Exception handling is a big deal, and it's not simple to design a good strategy for that.
First of all, some general rules:
Exceptions occur when the running code is completely unable to go ahead, so maybe it tried to handle some internal exceptions but ultimately failed. Think about TCP connection: if a damaged packet arrives, it's an exception, but TCP protocol can handle it. If too many are damaged, an I/O or socket exception is thrown
Exceptions can not always be handled. In almost all cases, when you get an exception from underlying layers you are unable to run corrective code. If your application depends on a DB and that is offline, when you get the exception about it you can only display an error message
Exceptions can be unexpected, and can reveal design or implementation flaws. For example, an implementation flaw can be the situation in which you have a redundant DB but when you fail to connect to frist mirror you don't try with the second
For the third point, it's important to log exceptions and periodically analyse logs to find any weird situation. So, let's begin with the concrete answer.
First of all
think about "handling" the exception. When you write every single code line, think about the possible problems that may prevent it from completing, and think about the possible corrective actions. if any are possible. An error message is not a good handling way, it's the latest strategy.
Don't start to write try-catch(Exception), but prefer specific exceptions. If you need to parse strings to numbers etc, then expect FormatException, if you need to cast from Object to your type expect InvalidCastException
When you write lower-level layers
don't hesitate to throw exceptions!! Don't do like many folks do, ie. return null or use (like ANSI C) a boolean return value and reference parameters. Exceptions are there for that. If you can handle an exception (ie. you don't find a local file but you know you have a remote backup, so handle FileNotFoundException by calling the remote mirror, but if you can't still connect then ultimately throw) then do it and try to resume computation, but if you cannot then throw. And don't forget to throw the inner exception, if present, because it is helpful for logging in the highest layer.
Basically, you can still decide to throw an exception on your own even if you don't catch any! And this is highly recommended especially when function parameters are invalid!
Another good option is to still log in the underlying layers. You actually want to log no matter an exception occurs.
When you log
remember to give an adequate severity to the messages. If you find via code that your DB is offline, that's not an unexpected exception. Still log it as an error, but don't worry about code bugs when you investigate the logs. Instead, if you catch an exception that your code is unable to recognize (a NullReferenceException is a classic example) then log with highest severity, ie. fatal, to give it maximum priority!
A good strategy for ASP.NET
can surely be based upon Page.OnError method. If you have a base page class for all of the pages of your site, you should definitely override that method. In that method, you should first log your exception.
You also shouldn't abuse of try-catch(Exception) blocks, because if you don't catch an exception you can't handle with catch, you will have to handle it via OnError.
When you run such a method, don't immediately think about Server.RemoveError(). You can prefer to have a static HTML page for HTTP 500 error (that is triggered when an unhandled exception bubbles to ASP.NET runtime) that displays a courtesy message to the user.
Briefly
Don't hesitate to throw in underlying layers if anything strange occurs
As said by your advice, don't handle exceptions you are unable to handle (if you catch an exception you can't handle, rethrow it)
LOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't disclose exception details to final users on a public website, never!! By default, ASP.NET prevents that from occurring, but you could still use OnError to print stack trace
Use OnError, or Application_Error as single central point to handle all unexpected exceptions
Periodically examine logs against error/fatal messages to find issues with your code, then think about maintaining/debugging/fixing it

Take a look at elmah. It's a logger for asp.net. Renders all errors on a nice summary page.
http://code.google.com/p/elmah/
The best way to handle exceptions is in the specific layer they apply to. If it is a constraint volation, for example, 2 users with the same name, you should let that bubble up to the UI and alert the user.
Same goes with any business rule violations. Those should bubble up to the UI so the end user knows what went wrong.
A SQL Connectivity error is best handled in the DAL...etc..

The how/when/where to catch exceptions may depend on what your trying to do exactly, its difficult to give an exact catch all always correct answer.
As to your specific questions,
I just learned about the SqlException
class, what's the deal with that class
? I once saw a code that handles the
SqlException then it handles
Exception!
Its good practice to handle the specific exception you believe may occur, if your not sure what type this exception is you can just 'Exception', if you want something specific to occur on a 'SQLException' and something else to happen with an 'Exception' then there is certainly nothing wrong with writing code that handles both.
"Don't just explicitly catch
exceptions"
I believe this is refering to code like this
try
{
int i = 1/0;
}
catch(Exception e)
{
//do nothing
}
This exception will be caught but you'll never know it happened, hence this is not a good idea, and the person using the code will be scratching their head as to whats going on.

I think what you are asking here is a Error/Exception Handling Strategy for any application.
I think it includes:
Where - All places where you think an exception can occur or which need more monitoring like DB calls, External Service Calls, Use of Arrays, User Input Parsing, Type Casting and so on...
How - All you high level layers should throw the exception and it should be captured at the entry point and processed to understand the root cause. Usually you do this in Application_Error() where you catch the exception and log it for troubleshooting. How you log an exception is upto you. A Log File or DB driven log is an option based on your requirements and available resources.

IMO apart from extremely rare circumstances I only ever use exception handling for I/O related code where there are interactions with services and file systems whose functionality and maintenance is beyond the control of my applications.
I have always considered the use try/catch statements to manipulate the logic (flow-of-control) in a program in the same way if/else statement work to be extremely bad practice. Most common exceptions can be avoided if you use the tools at hand correctly.

Making use of exceptions in code...C# File IO exceptions

I have a question reagrding proper programming practice when dealing with exceptions.
We have production code like:
try
{
File.Copy(src,dest);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
ShowMessageToUser(ex.Message);
}
Is this a good practice? I thought that we should always make use of specialized exceptions and catch them....on the other hand, I do realize that File.Copy can throw several different exceptions and it will be a pain to write a catch block for every exception...? So what should be done in this case....Is there a set of file specific excepion collections that we can use to catch?
Thanks , any comments are welcome.

As a general practice, I would say this is not a good practice. Personally, I would handle this with separate exceptions, and only handle the exceptions you can be handle correctly.
In this specific scenario, I would also avoid this. I would prefer to handle the explicit exception types, if for no other reason than to customize the message to the user.
This is mainly because exception messages are really not intended for an end user - they're messages meant to be interpreted by a developer. I feel that directly showing an exception message to a user, especially for an operation where an exception is likely, is a bad practice.
You should handle each exception, and provide a meaningful message to the user that makes sense in the context of this operation.
File.Copy can only throw 8 types of exceptions - handling every one, with a message, is only 32 lines of code - that's really not that much when you consider the extra benefit of having a clear, meaningful message in all cases presented to the end user.

IO is generally a pain for this reason- there are so many things that can go wrong. It would be best for you to:
Do everything you can to avoid exceptions by checking all parameters before calling File.Copy. Remember that in .Net exceptions can have severe performance costs due to the generation of a stack trace.
Catch the exceptions that you know you are capable of handling. For some exceptions you might want to display an error message and ask the user for new input.
If you can't handle an exception right there, do not catch it! Exception swallowing is the source of all evil. Reporting an error message is only slightly better than exception swallowing and will only confuse the end user.
It may seem like a lot of work, but sometimes a lot of work is necessary to produce a stable program.

You use specialized exceptions in order to perform different actions based on the type of error you got. If all you want is to show the user the default error message... then your code is sufficient.
But let's say for example that you would like to log the exception if it happened because of security issues... you would write something like:
catch (PermissionDeniedException ex)
{
Log(ex.foo);
ShowMessageToUser(ex.Message);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
ShowMessageToUser(ex.Message);
}
And remember to always go from more specific to more general exceptions.

Yes that's a bad Practice and you should use specific Exceptions and then general Exception lower the catch block.
If you feel that they are too many then you should at least create catch blocks for most Anticipated file Specific Exception and then have usual Exception catch block

Your example is very easy to implement, but hardly best practices. As a general rule
Only catch Exceptions you are actually interested in handling at this point. Let everything else bubble on to be handled elsewhere.
You can also use superclasses to catch a specific group of exceptions.
Do not use exceptions for things that are not errors. For example, if the user supplies the file name for the copy, you can check beforehand if the file exists, instead of relying on an exception. Exceptions are for "exceptional circumstances", not for foreseeable conditions.
If you're hacking a quick script, however, feel free to use the exception as in your example ;-)

General Exception Handling Strategy for .NET

I’m used to having try/catch blocks in every method. The reason for this is so that I can catch every exception at the point of infraction and log it. I understand, from my reading and conversations with others, that this isn’t a popular view. One should only catch what one is prepared to handle. However, if I don’t catch at the point of infraction, then it would be possible to never log that infraction and know about it. Note: When I do catch and don’t handle, I still throw. This allows me to let the exception propagate to something that will handle it, yet still let me log it at the point of infraction.
So... How does one avoid try/catch in every method, yet still log the error at the point at which it occurred?

No, don't catch everything. Exceptions propagate higher up on the stack. All you have to do is make sure that the exception is caught before it gets to the top of the stack.
This means, for instance, that you should surround the code of an event handler with a try/catch block. An event handler may be the "top of the stack". Same for a ThreadStart handler or a callback from an asynchronous method.
You also want to catch exceptions on layer boundaries, though in that case, you might just want to wrap the exception in a layer-specific exception.
In the case of ASP.NET, you may decide to allow ASP.NET Health Monitoring to log the exception for you.
But you certainly don't ever need to catch exceptions in every method. That's a major anti-pattern. I would loudly object to you checking in code with that kind of exception handling.

You can see everything at stack trace - no need to try/catch every method.
Stick to few rules:
Use try/catch only if you want to use a custom exception type
Define a new exception type only if upper levels needs to know that
Try/catch at top level instead of doing that for each method

OK, having read all the answers saying you should have a single try/catch at the top level, I'm going to weigh in with an alternative view.
I wouldn't put a try/catch in every method, far from it. But I would use a try/catch around sections of code that I expected to fail (e.g. opening a file), and where I wanted to add additional information to the exception (to be logged higher up the chain).
A stack trace saying and a message saying "permission denied" might be enough to allow you as a programmer to figure out what went wrong, but my goal is to provide the user with meaningful information, such as "Could not open file 'C:\lockedfile.txt'. Permission denied.".
As in:
private void DoSomethingWithFile(string filename)
{
// Note: try/catch doesn't need to surround the whole method...
if (File.Exists(filename))
{
try
{
// do something involving the file
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new ApplicationException(string.Format("Cannot do something with file '{0}'.", filename), ex);
}
}
}
I'd also like to mention that even the people saying "only have one try/catch" would presumably still use try/finally throughout their code, since that's the only way to guarantee proper cleanup, etc.

Catching and rethrowing an exception that you cannot handle is nothing more than a waste of processor time. If you can't do anything with or about the exception, ignore it and let the caller respond to it.
If you want to log every exception, a global exception handler will do just fine. In .NET, the stack trace is an object; its properties can be inspected like any other. You can write the properties of the stack trace (even in string form) to your log of choice.
If you want to ensure that every exception is caught, a global exception handler should do the trick. In point of fact, no application should be without one.
Your catch blocks should only catch exceptions that you know that you can gracefully recover from. That is, if you can do something about it, catch it. Otherwise, let the caller worry about it. If no callers can do anything about it, let the global exception handler catch it, and log it.

I definitely don't use a try catch wrapper around every method (oddly enough, I did when I first started but that was before I learned better ways).
1) To prevent the program from crashing and the users losing their info, I do this
runProgram:
try
{
container.ShowDialog();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
ExceptionManager.Publish(ex);
if (MessageBox.Show("A fatal error has occurred. Please save work and restart program. Would you like to try to continue?", "Fatal Error", MessageBoxButtons.YesNo) == DialogResult.Yes)
goto runProgram;
container.Close();
}
container is where my application starts so this basically puts a wrapper around my entire app so that nothing causes a crash that can't be recovered. This is one of those rare instances where I don't really mind using a goto (it is a small amount of code and still quite readable)
2) I only catch exceptions in methods where I expect something could go wrong (such as a timeout).
3) Just as a point of readibility, if you have a try catch block with a bunch of code in the try section and a bunch in the catch section, it is better to extract that code to a well named method.
public void delete(Page page)
{
try
{
deletePageAndAllReferences(page)
}
catch (Exception e)
{
logError(e);
}
}

To do it at the point of occurrence, you would still need a try/catch. But you don't necessarily need to catch the exceptions everywhere. They propagate up the call stack, and when they are caught, you get a stack trace. So if a problem emerges, you can always add more try/catches as needed.
Consider checking out one of the many logging frameworks that are available.

I don't think you need to catch everything at the point of infraction. You can bubble up your exceptions, and then use the StackTrace to figure out where the point of infraction actually occurred.
Also, if you need to have a try catch block, the best approach I've heard is to isolate it in a method, as to not clutter the code with huge try catch blocks. Also, make as few statements as possible in the try statement.
Of course, just to reiterate, bubbling up your exceptions to the top and logging the stacktrace is a better approach than nesting try-catch-log-throw blocks all throughout your code.

I would look into using ELMAH for exception handling, which is pretty much a concept of "let exceptions happen". ELMAH will take care of logging them and you can even set it to email you when exceptions for a certain project reach or exceed a specific threshold. In my department, we stay as far away from try/catch blocks as possible. If something is wrong in the application, we want to know right away what the issue is so we can fix it, instead of repressing the exception and handling it in code.
If an exception happens, that means that something isn't right. The idea is to make your application do only what it should do. If it's doing something different and causing exceptions, your response should be to fix the reason it's happening, not let it happen and handle it in code. This is just my/our philosophy and it's not for everyone. But we've all been burned way too many times by an application "eating" an exception for some reason or another and no one knows that something is wrong.
And never, ever, EVER catch a general Exception. Always, always, always catch the most specific exception so that if an exception is thrown, but it's not the type you're expecting, again, you'll know because the app will crash. If you just catch (Exception e), then no matter what type of exception is thrown, your catch block will now be responsible for responding to every single type of exception that could possibly be thrown. And if it doesn't, then you run into the whole "eating" exceptions, where something is going wrong but you never know until it is likely too late.

How does one avoid try/catch in every method, yet still log the error at the point at which it occurred?
It depends on the hosting env. Asp.Net, WinForms, and WPF all have different ways of capturing unhandled exceptions. But once the global handler is passes an exception instance you can determine the point of throw from the exception, as each exception includes a stacktrace.

Realistically, avoid granular try/catches. Allow the exception to traverse upwards in the stack and be caught in as high a level as possible. If you have a specific point of concern, then place logging in the immediate catch, if you are worried about the exception cascading - although you would still be able to resolve these by drilling into the inner exceptions.
Exception handling should not be an afterthought. Make sure that you do it consistently. I have seen a lot of people put a broad try/catch from the beginning to the end of every method and catch the general exception. People think that this helps them get more information, when in fact, it doesn't. More is less in some cases, as less is more. I never get tired of the axiom that "Exceptions should be used to note exceptional behavior." Recover if you can, and try to reduce the number of overall exceptions. Nothing is more frustrating when you are trying to troubleshoot an issue and seeing hundreds of the same NullReferenceException, or similar, when something goes wrong.

Exceptions are implemented so that they have no cost unless thrown.
This means to me that performance ramifications is not a strong argument against. Exceptional conditions usually are ... exceptional.