4 ms·
> Separation of concerns is great, but if you really want different parts of your system to have different reliability constraints, then you need to truly separ
by lomnakkus 10y ago
> Separation of concerns is great, but if you really want different parts of your system to have different reliability constraints, then you need to truly separate them, for example by running them in different processes. Running them in the same process but having some of the code be more lax about state because it's less important is just begging for horrible bugs.
Indeed, and you might even want to run them on entirely different and independent systems (connected by some type of network/bus) depending on exactly what bits are critical vs. non-critical.
- IgorPartola 10y agoWhy can't it be opt-in instead of opt-out? Or can we have more granular control overall? On an application, module, class, function, and block level? That way my super tight hit loop that I can prove does not overflow gets a 2x speed up, while the rest of the code is safe. Oh and I can always recompile it to be always safe and analyze crashes in the real world, no t just my silly unit tests that amount to 2 + 2 == 4.
- stouset 10y agoContinuing on as a default is dangerous, and has led to hundreds of thousands of security vulnerabilities. Not continuing is inconvenient, but safe.
- emodendroket 10y agoMaybe it's time to bring back VB6 and On Error Resume Next.
- flukus 10y agoIt never went away, now it's just "catch (Exception) { }" spread liberally throughout the code base.
- vurpo 10y agoHow to fix all errors in Python: try: #your code goes here except: pass
- emodendroket 10y agoWell, technically the behavior of that is somewhat different.