This interestingly leads I believe to the "let it crash" philosophy of Erlang (and apparently Akka?) -- see e.g.: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LetItCrash http://c2.co

This interestingly leads I believe to the "let it crash" philosophy of Erlang (and apparently Akka?) -- see e.g.: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LetItCrash http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LetItCrash, https://lwn.net/Articles/191059/ https://lwn.net/Articles/191059/. I do believe it's a very good and important approach, in that I don't really know of a better one. Still, on the other hand, I've learned that it seems to also have it's own weird and counter-intiuitive risks -- vide Systemantics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics#System_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics#System_failure. As I understand the premise: it's easy to over-rely on one's "fail-safe" measures, to the point where the "regular" mode of operation is allowed to deteriorate such that the fail-safes are actually running the system (or even they're just hit too often); then, failure of a fail-safe takes the system down, and unexpectedly ("Why, when we had so many and so good fail-safes!").