ctrl+c and destructors

[Paulo Pinto]

On 04.10.2013 01:49, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, October 04, 2013 01:18:31 deadalnix wrote:
>> On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 22:38:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 10/3/2013 2:15 PM, nazriel wrote:
>>>> Music player (as example) do not kill people if they fail.
>>>> Aborting whole music player just because Visualisation plugin
>>>> had access
>>>> violation is pointless.
>>>
>>> How does the music player know the fault is in the plugin and
>>> it could be safely continued?
>>
>> Because a music player can ALWAYS safely continue. Worst case
>> scenario, if behave erratically and is killed by user.
>>
>> A car firmware kill people if they behave erratically. The right
>> choice is to kill it if anything look wrong.
>>
>> A media player won't kill anyone.
>
> Just because it won't kill anyone doesn't mean that it's okay for it to
> continue after it's in a bad state. It could do other nasty things to the
> system (including corrupt the files that it's operating on). Once a program's
> in an invalid state, all bets are off. I fully concur with Walter that it's
> better to kill the program at that point and restart it whether lives are on
> the line or not. And if that means that the user sees crashes, oh well.
> They'll complain and the developer will have to fix them, which is exactly what
> they need to do, because they wouldn't be getting stuff like segfaults or
> Errors if their code wasn't broken.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>


Fully agree. We only got in the sore point of today's industry quality 
because people got used to have broken applications.

Noone is happy driving a car that kind of works, shoes with shoelaces 
that will only work in nights of full moon, ....

Quality should be always a concern, not only when people lives are at stake.

--
Paulo