2 ms·
Perhaps not that relevant in the context of C++, but I think Joe Armstrong's "let it crash" philosophy is quite interesting. It made me re-think my approach to
by roeles 5y ago
Perhaps not that relevant in the context of C++, but I think Joe Armstrong's "let it crash" philosophy is quite interesting. It made me re-think my approach to error-handling entirely.
- bjackman 5y agoThere seems to have been a lot of "let it crash" formerly at Google. My main experience with this has been one of annoyance, e.g: - An old library we were using for a nice-to-have feature started crashing our server when an ACL change got rolled out. We had to disable and then permanently remove the feature. - When reusing a server-side component in a client-side service, the implications of crashing are different. When your servers crash at Google it generally gets detected and the binary/config gets automatically rolled back and things restard cleanly. On a systemd service? Not so straightforward. Now you have to rework the component to do proper error handling, or start thinking very carefully about how your package interacts with the rest of the system. So yeah I guess let-it-crash has its place but that place is not 'everywhere'.