Richard Bucker

Let It Crash

Posted at — Jul 19, 2015

I’ve developed some interesting systems in Erlang. They were fun and interesting projects. I also find it interesting that Joe Armstrong is such an amazing advocate; clearly he has over 26 years dedicated to the project. A good number of people would appear as dear in headlights if one day Joe decided he got it wrong and that BASIC was a better choice.However, I liked a number of things he had to say and they make perfect sense [paraphrased].let it crashdo not program abnormalitythe set of extra things is enormousthat set is called defensive programminglet the crash be observable an then make it an issue to be workedSo the question is how can this be applied to other languages… golang in particular?UPDATE - “clean Erlang code” might just be full of shit. I just spent an hour trying to clean some golang code using the same principles as the erlang demo and I find that trying to create one function per line of code just does not feel natural in golang and it feels less normal for erlang too. Granted there is room to clean my code as there is too much nesting but there is no way I can resolve the sort of reduction the presenter was suggesting.