> All exceptions have to be handled, but they don't have to be handled at the call site, you can have them propogate back up if you want. Implicitly? > When y

> All exceptions have to be handled, but they don't have to be handled at the call site, you can have them propogate back up if you want. Implicitly? > When you say assertion, do you mean, that you want to program to exit? No, I mean that in some cases I know better than the compiler. For example, in a case where something is T or None, but I know it's T. If T is None, it's a bug - but I don't want my whole program to crash. Ideally it would propagate up to some boundary where there's little enough shared state (the actor boundary) that I can restart my process without having to go through the whole program being restarted. Otherwise my actor boundary becomes the entire process, and I feel like that sort of defeats the purpose of having extremely cheap, efficient actors. So definitely not a 'kill the program' but a 'this feature has a bug, wind up the actor and restart it, but no other actors should blow up unless this is a direct dependency of theres'. Basically the way Erlang does it afaik I say this as an outsider. What you have may work for you, and maybe it's the right decision. That was just my impression as someone trying to use the language. Also OOM killing my program.