On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 8:09 PM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 8:17 AM Wes Turner <wes.tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What a worthless semantic distinction.
> >
> > You don't want to be executing code to determine why an Exception
> occurred because you do not trust support devs to access all of the data in
> the production system.
> >
> > "Exceptions happen" is true, but that's not satisfactory in an
> organization focused on quality.
> >
>
> .... wut?
>
> I don't understand what you mean here. Sometimes a traceback isn't all
> the information, and you need to add code to something to figure out
> the cause. Are you implying that, because I actually put effort into
> tracking bugs down, I am clearly not focused on quality??
>
> I'll just go ahead and repeat myself: "what?"
>
- The context of this tangent was ~"[Exceptions happen in production] and
that's okay".
- Looseness with exception handling is entirely unacceptable for
safety-critical and high availability applications.
- *Interactive debugging* is fine for many non-production applications.
- Yup, the process spawner is going to reap and restart when the
process fails due to an unhandled Exception,
but data loss due to unhandled exceptions (and non-transactional
data persistence) is a real problem
- "It's just going to raise whatever sometimes and you can just pdb
it every time"
- You can add information to exceptions and preserve the traceback with
`raise _ from _`
I have nothing further to add about this non-personal tangent.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/JSUBOGJLQTIIJWYMLP2DZFSKMM4AQYDG/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
