Re: Question about to-be-closed methods

[Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@...>]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 22:25, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Dibyendu" == Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk> writes:
>
>  Dibyendu> It is probably an imperfect analogy if you consider Lua as an
>  Dibyendu> embedded language, where it is not the main program. There
>  Dibyendu> was a talk several years ago by a Google engineer that said
>  Dibyendu> essentially there is no point trying to recover after a
>  Dibyendu> memory failure. Fail fast is often a better approach -
>  Dibyendu> because trying to recover in that scenario could cause more
>  Dibyendu> damage because of further failures.
>
> Most environments are not Google.
>

I hesitated mentioning Google because I anticipated a response like above :-)

I do not work in the embedded devices space with limited RAM - but in
regular computers, it is pretty hard to get memory failure these days,
because the OS will just start paging.
The most common case of memory failure I have seen are in JVMs where
heap memory is set to a finite limit. So the heap failure is
artificial. It is self imposed rather than imposed by the OS.
I have yet to see a complex program survive after a heap failure.

Regards
Dibyendu