> I've been working for multiple decades now with systems that have no UI to speak of; their end-users are barely aware that there's a whole system behind what they can see, and that's a good thing because they become aware of it when it causes them trouble.
Notice I said "user" not "end-user" or "customer".
This was not an accident.
In your system (as in mine) the "user" is the operator.
> the best solution to a problem is to avoid it.
That's your opinion man. I don't know if you can avoid everything (I certainly can't).
Something to consider is why Erlang people have been trying to get people to "let it crash" and just deal with that, because enumerating the solutions is sometimes easier than enumerating the problems.
That’s not his opinion, that’s the standard technique in systems programming. It’s why there’s software out there that does in fact never crash and shows consistent performance.
> Something to consider is why Erlang people have been trying to get people to "let it crash" and just deal with that
Yes, if you can afford it, I would say it is a way to avoid the problem of handling errors in a bug-free way. But it is more than yet another error handling tactic, it is a design strategy.
I appreciate that, but...
> I've been working for multiple decades now with systems that have no UI to speak of; their end-users are barely aware that there's a whole system behind what they can see, and that's a good thing because they become aware of it when it causes them trouble.
Notice I said "user" not "end-user" or "customer".
This was not an accident.
In your system (as in mine) the "user" is the operator.
> the best solution to a problem is to avoid it.
That's your opinion man. I don't know if you can avoid everything (I certainly can't).
Something to consider is why Erlang people have been trying to get people to "let it crash" and just deal with that, because enumerating the solutions is sometimes easier than enumerating the problems.