Instead of answering on the technical merits of an argument, you went for an ad hominem so...? I ask again...do you use NIFs ?
"If the entire computer crashes, you're screwed. you can't really do fault tolerant computation from one machine."
- Joe Armstrong
Say: Well-designed Erlang systems can fail gracefully and self-heal locally...but they’re only as fault-tolerant as their distributed architecture and ops discipline allows...And we will conclude in a nice agreement. :-)
> Well-designed Erlang systems can fail gracefully and self-heal locally...but they’re only as fault-tolerant as their distributed architecture and ops discipline allows
Correct.
> you went for an ad hominem
Not my intention. I asked a simple question, and you answered a question with a question, effectively gish galloping me with "but there are ways it can crash" except nobody said there wasn't. It stopped feeling like a technical debate at that point.
FWIW, I didn't make the original comment you replied to, I just pointed out that this statement:
> "Practically never crash" ignores software bugs, resource exhaustion, or bad architecture
felt like a surface response to the OPs sentiment of localized failures not tanking an entire software system.