On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 17:38:40 UTC, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:
The part of Walter's point that is either deliberately overlooked or somewhat misunderstood here is the notion of a fault domain. In a typical unix or windows based environment, it's a process. A fault within the process yields the aborting of the process but not all processes. Erlang introduces within it's execution model a concept of a process within the higher level notion of the os level process. Within the erlang runtime it's individual processes run independently and can each fail independently. The erlang runtime guarantees a higher level of separation than a typical threaded java or c++ application. An error within the erlang runtime itself would justifiably cause the entire system to be halted. Just as within an airplane, to use Walter's favorite analogy, the seat entertainment system is physically and logically separated from flight control systems thus a fault within the former has no impact on the latter.
Yep. And I think it's a fair assertion that the default fault domain in a D program is at the process level, since D is not inherently memory safe. But I don't think the language should necessarily make that assertion to the degree that no other definition is possible.
