4 ms·
Erlang asserts that all errors can be grouped together and managed as if they are of the same category, i.e. that any error is crashworthy. This model of errors
by preseinger 4y ago
Erlang asserts that all errors can be grouped together and managed as if they are of the same category, i.e. that any error is crashworthy. This model of errors isn't wrong,
but it is naïve, and it makes it impossible to design a system whose entities are resilient to what are, factually, normal runtime faults.
Erlang and the OTP are
interesting and worth studying and may be a good design choice under certain constraints. But in no way does the crash-only model of the Erlang OTP represent an optimal architectural model in general. Technology has advanced since 1960.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago"Technology has advanced since 1960"... I would argue not significantly, and in some metrics it is now less reliable. When you see GPU lock up and burn down a power supply, the concept of hardware failure modes will change. LOL Cheers ;)
- preseinger 4y agoGood luck to you, then.
- macintux 4y agoI believe you’re oversimplifying. The approach that seems most common with serious Erlang systems is to identify the common errors and handle them without crashing. Crashing on less common, or impossible to reproduce, errors allows you to gradually improve your error handling over time if it’s worthwhile, or just allow it to continue to crash into a saner state. See the “bohrbug” vs “heisenbug” discussion: https://ferd.ca/the-zen-of-erlang.html https://ferd.ca/the-zen-of-erlang.html