On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 05:05:31PM +0100, Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 01/08/2014 05:12, Walter Bright wrote: > >On 7/31/2014 2:21 PM, Sean Kelly wrote: > >>Thoughts? > > > >If a process detects a logic error, then that process is in an > >invalid state that is unanticipated and unknown to the developer. The > >only correct solution is to halt that process, and all processes that > >share memory with it. > > > >Anything less is based on faith and hope. If it is medical, flight > >control, or banking software, I submit that operating on faith and > >hope is not acceptable. > > > >If it's a dvr or game, who cares :-) My dvr crashes regularly needing > >a power off reboot. > > "If it's a game, who cares" -> Oh let's see... let's say I'm playing a > game, and then there's a bug (which happens often). What would I > prefer to happen: > > * a small (or big) visual glitch, like pixels out of place, corrupted > textures, or 3D model of an object becoming deformed, or the physics > of some object behaving erratically, or some broken animation. > > * the whole game crashes, and I lose all my progress? [...]
What if the program has a bug that corrupts your save game file, but because the program ignores these logic errors, it just bumbles onward and destroys all your progress *without* you even knowing about it until much later? (I have actually experienced this firsthand, btw. I found it *far* more frustrating than losing all my progress -- at least I can restore the game to the last savepoint, and have confidence that it isn't irreparably corrupted! I almost threw the computer out the window once when after a game crash I restored the savefile, only to discover a few hours later that due to a corruption in the savefile, it was impossible to win the game after all. Logic errors should *never* have made it past the point of detection.) T -- People tell me I'm stubborn, but I refuse to accept it!
