Who needs exceptions (was Re: Two languages, too similar, competing in the same space.)

[Alex Martelli]

"Michael Kelly" <mkelly2002NOSPAM at earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ig593uogii9sjfmkjiunb9i7ilsni5s0lr at 4ax.com...
    ...
> for commitment!  It's kind of like a reservation
> at a hotel.  It tells you that space is assured so
> that you will try to use it.  Whether it's actually
> there when you go to access it is another matter.

Again, Windows is not original: I well recall when AIX
started doing *THAT* ('overcommitting' memory) back
when RS6000 had just come out.  IBM got enough flack
about *THAT*, that they eventually made this behavior
'optional' (some 'option'...!).

Our workaround was to give our users a configuration
option to go and TOUCH the preallocated memory to make
sure it was committed, not just reserved.  Made startup
slower, but still saved them often enough from losing
work that, I gather, most did use this option.


> it!  Or, the problem is invalid page faults 'cause the
> windows system itself is corrupted, so you are
> depending on the very unstable subsystem for
> recovery that is causing the error.  The list goes

When the entire OS craps out from under me, and even
trashes my tiny super-solid "watchdog process", then,
of course, that's it.  Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.

But highly-defensive programming in this regard still
slashes errors causing loss of substantial work to the
end-user by at least an order of magnitude.


Alex