I think 'let it crash' means if your worker process encounters an error, let the supervisor process worry about the error handling. Don't be defensive in worker

I think 'let it crash' means if your worker process encounters an error, let the supervisor process worry about the error handling. Don't be defensive in worker. A lot of copy paste here from Joe Armstrong's thesis: Worker process does the job. Another process, the supervisor process, observes the worker. If an error occurs in the worker, the supervisor takes actions to correct the error. 1. There is a clean separation of issues. The processes that are supposed to do things (the workers) do not have to worry about error handling. 2. We can have special processes which are only concerned with error handling. 3. We can run the workers and supervisors on different physical machines. 4. It often turns out that the error correcting code is generic, that is, generally applicable to many applications, whereas the worker code is more often application specific. ------- 1. Exceptions occur when the run-time system does not know what to do. 2. Errors occur when the programmer doesn’t know what to do. The basic idea is: Try to perform a task. If you cannot perform the task, then try to perform a simpler task. To each task we associate a supervisor process- the supervisor will assign a worker to try and achieve the goals implied by the task. If the worker process fails with a non-normal exit then the supervisor will assume that the task has failed and will initiate some error recovery procedure. The error recovery procedure might be to restart the worker or failing this try to do something simpler. Thesis: https://web.archive.org/web/20041204143417/http://www.sics.se/~joe/thesis/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20041204143417/http://www.sics.s...