3 ms·
> Should we have error handling at all ? > Software engineers: no, too much work to think about every possible error case > Sysadmins (looking at above statem
by jackewiehose 8y ago
> Should we have error handling at all ?
> Software engineers: no, too much work to think about every possible error case
> Sysadmins (looking at above statement): NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I hope all developers that are not completely incompetent agree with the sysadmins here.
- candiodari 8y agoSure, then ask them "what happens if you run out of memory in the middle of the 'new user' function" and see what their answer is.
- jackewiehose 8y agoThere is nothing wrong to "ignore" errors like out-of-memory, as long as you know the consequences. Terminating the application on fatal errors is part of error handling. That's fine. But you should never ever ignore(!) errors, hoping for the best (and I think try-catch encourages this, so I don't like it).
- Forge36 8y agoThat's the mess I'm dealing with today. Lots of secret suppression on dozens of cases. Once we started logging and stopped seeing obsolete responses, the data loses started coming in. That's raising a lot of concern now
- candiodari 8y agoOh I forgot one. Should we have error checking ? Management (no error checking): everything looks good ! Management (error checking): our developers SUCK ! They constantly get close to losing data or insist on the database having this "correctness" technobabbly thing. Idiots.
- anyfoo 8y agoThe transaction doesn’t complete and you’re back with the previous state. Modern software is often written in a way that kill -9 is the actual supposed way to terminate the process, to drive the point home that aborting at any point should be safe.