On 10/2/2013 10:10 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
If there's one notion I'd like to terminate with prejudice, it's the notion
that a running program can "recover" from bugs in itself.
I worked on a system whose design was specifically built around trapping and
recovering from segfaults (great design, and sadly, patented). Things like
this are one of the primary reasons to use a systems programming language.
So while I agree in the general sense, I don't think it's appropriate for the
language to make a hard and fast assertion here. I think we should choose a
reasonable, safe default, but make it overridable. That's pretty much the
design philosophy of Druntime.
D being a systems programming language, you can pursue whatever design you like
with it, including bad designs :-)
Although I haven't seen the system you describe, I'm very skeptical that it
found the solution to the problem of a program successfully continuing after it
has crashed due to program bugs. I remain firmly convinced that that is an
utterly wrong and doomed approach to the problem of reliability.
