upvote
True. And that the subtle bugs were then picked up by static analysis makes the safety proposition of Erlang even better.

> Bugs that happen regularly in prod

It depends on how regular and reproducible they are. Timing bugs are notoriously difficult to pin down. Pair that with let-it-crash philosophy, and it's maybe not worth tracking down. OTOH, Erlang has been used for critical systems for a very long time – plenty long enough for such bugs to be tracked down if they posed real problems in practice.

reply
Erlang has "die and be restarted" philosophy towards process failures, so these "bugs that happen to erlang systems in prod" may not be fixed at all, if they are rare enough.
reply
As of now, the post you're replying to says "bugs that regularly happen ... in prod"

Now, if it crashes every 10 years, that is regular, but I think the meaning is that it happens often. Back when I operated a large dist cluster, yes, some rare crashes happened that never got noticed or the triage was 'wait and see if it happens again' and it didn't happen. But let it crash and restart from a known good state is a philosophy about structuring error checking more than an operational philosophy: always check for success and if you don't know how to handle an error fail loudly and return to a good state to continue.

Operationally, you are expected to monitor for crashes and figure out how to prevent them in the future. And, IMHO, be prepared to hot load fixes in response... although a lot of organizations don't hot load.

reply