On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 12:45:40 UTC, crimaniak wrote:
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.

Sounds like you're describing the "Let it crash" philosophy of Erlang:

https://ferd.ca/the-zen-of-erlang.html

The crucial point is whether you can depend on the error being isolated, as in Erlang's lightweight processes. I guess D assumes it isn't.

Reply via email to