5 ms·
This isn't true. For example: 3.13 Do not program "defensively" suggests that the programmer should allow functions to crash if given unhandled input types. T
by banachtarski 14y ago
This isn't true.
For example:
3.13 Do not program "defensively" suggests that the programmer should allow functions to crash if given unhandled input types. This does not work in most other programming languages to create a fault tolerant application.
A number of advice points about process/module organization also do not apply to most languages.
Tagging messages? Makes sense in lisp (and a few others), but again, not in most languages
Not to trap exits, again Erlang specific.
I could go on and on. Did you even read this?
- tbe 14y ago> 3.13 Do not program "defensively" suggests that the programmer should allow functions to crash if given unhandled input types. This does not work in most other programming languages to create a fault tolerant application. Incidentally, this applies to languages with exceptions as well. The hardest to catch bugs are when bad behaviour is hidden inside a too general try/catch. > Not to trap exits, again Erlang specific. Yes.