On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 at 22:59:08 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Or aside from that strawman that RangeError shouldn't be an
Error even...
I suspect that we're going to have to agree to disagree on that
one. ...
...
continuing to execute the program is risky by definition. ...
This error handling policy makes D not applicable for creating
WEB applications and generally long-running services. I think
anyone who has worked in the enterprise sector will confirm that
any complex WEB service contains some number of errors that were
not detected during the tests. These errors are detected randomly
during operation. And the greatest probability of their detection
- during the peak traffic of the site. Do you kill the whole
application even in the case of undisturbed memory, with one
suspicion of a logical error? At the peak of attendance? To
prevent a potential catastrophe, which could theoretically arise
as a result of this error? Congratulations! The catastrophe is
already here.
And in the case of services, the strategy for responding to
errors must be exactly the opposite. The error should be
maximally localized, and the programmer should be able to respond
to any type of errors. The very nature of the work of WEB
applications contributes to this. As a rule, queries are handled
by short-lived tasks that work with thread-local memory, and
killing only the task that caused the error, with the transfer of
the exception to the calling task, would radically improve the
situation. And yes, RangeError shouldn't be an Error.
