"BEAM crashes with segmentation fault #7683" - https://github.com/erlang/otp/issues/7683
You dont use NIFs ?
"A native function that crashes will crash the whole VM." - https://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/erts/erl_nif.html
"Who Supervises The Supervisors?" - https://learnyousomeerlang.com/supervisors
"If the entire computer crashes, you're screwed. you can't really do fault tolerant computation from one machine."
- Joe Armstrong
And the reason for the quote above is to remind you Erlang/BEAM gives you tools for fault containment and recovery, but not immunity from failure.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. :-)
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.
I can guarantee you Erlang wont save you from an Ericsson AXD301 switch with a full storage...