How to Handle Exceptions in .NET the Right Way

Exception handling is one of the most critical concerns in building reliable applications. In .NET, although try-catch is a well-known mechanism, improper usage can lead to performance issues, poor traceability, and maintainability problems.

In this article, I share best practices to handle exceptions in a clean and structured way — keeping your code readable, observable, and production-ready.

Exceptions Are for Exceptional Scenarios

First, a key reminder: exceptions should not be used for regular control flow. Throwing and catching exceptions comes at a high performance cost. If your logic can avoid throwing, it should.

❌ Bad practice:

try
{
    var client = _clientRepository.Get(id);
    client.ProcessOrder(); // might be null
}
catch (NullReferenceException)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Client not found.");
}        

✅ Better approach:

var client = _clientRepository.Get(id);
if (client is null)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Client not found.");
    return;
}

client.ProcessOrder();        

Avoid Catching General Exceptions

Catching generic Exception types can mask more serious issues or make debugging harder. Prefer specific exception types when handling known error scenarios:

try
{
    var result = await _paymentService.ProcessAsync();
}
catch (TimeoutException ex)
{
    _logger.LogWarning(ex, "Timeout communicating with gateway.");
}
catch (HttpRequestException ex)
{
    _logger.LogError(ex, "HTTP communication error.");
}        

This leads to more meaningful logs and better error handling granularity.

Use Structured Logging with Context

Structured logging is crucial for diagnosing issues in production. Always log exceptions with relevant context:

catch (Exception ex)
{
    _logger.LogError(ex, "Error while processing order {OrderId}", order.Id);
    throw;
}        

This helps with debugging and integrates well with tools like Serilog, Seq, Elastic Stack, or Azure Monitor.

Don’t Swallow Exceptions Silently

Swallowing exceptions without logging or rethrowing is one of the most damaging practices. It suppresses failure signals and makes diagnostics impossible.

❌ Risky example:

try
{
    ExecuteTransaction();
}
catch
{
    // silently ignored
}        

✅ Correct approach:

catch (Exception ex)
{
    _logger.LogError(ex, "Unexpected error during transaction.");
    throw;
}        

Avoid Try-Catch in High-Frequency Code Paths

The cost of a try-catch block itself is minimal — but frequently thrown exceptions in high-performance code paths (e.g., loops or batch processing) can become a bottleneck. Always validate conditions before throwing when possible.

Centralize Error Handling When Possible

In web APIs or server-side apps, it's best to centralize exception handling using middleware or global filters.

In ASP.NET Core, you can use:

app.UseExceptionHandler("/error");        

Or create a custom middleware:

app.Use(async (context, next) =>
{
    try
    {
        await next();
    }
    catch (Exception ex)
    {
        _logger.LogError(ex, "Unhandled exception occurred.");
        context.Response.StatusCode = 500;
        await context.Response.WriteAsync("Internal server error.");
    }
});        

This ensures unhandled errors are captured and logged consistently, without crashing the application.

Conclusion

Handling exceptions properly in .NET is not just about using try-catch. It’s about understanding when to throw, how to catch, and how to log exceptions in a way that supports your system’s performance and observability.

Resilient systems aren’t those that avoid failure — but those that handle failure with technical care and architectural discipline.

💬 Have you faced challenges with exception handling in production? What patterns or tools helped you improve reliability?

Let’s share experiences in the comments. #dotnet #csharp #softwarearchitecture #exceptionhandling #logging #backenddevelopment #resilience #programmingtips #cleanarchitecture #devlife #observability #LinkedInTech