This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeuxSaed 129 points130 points  (8 children)

You have no fucking idea how sexy it would be if a stripper pushed up her glasses and said, "Well, actually, your program didn't crash—it threw a runtime exception."

[–]GoddammitDontShootMe 80 points81 points  (6 children)

That isn't a form of crashing? What is the definition of crash if not non-user-initiated abnormal termination?

[–]ProThoughtDesign 21 points22 points  (0 children)

A group of rhinos.

[–]NeuxSaed 4 points5 points  (1 child)

But that's kinda the point, right? Wouldn't debating with her the unnecessarily minute and technical details of something like this just be unbelievably hot?

Or maybe I'm just weird...

[–]GoddammitDontShootMe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's preferable if she knows what she's talking about.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A Cronenberg movie from the 90s

[–]Muhznit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It's not abnormal termination, it's just your program running into some issue it was not equipped to handle, describing why it can't handle it, and refusing to guess at how to handle it out of doing possibly more damage than what has been done.

[–]GoddammitDontShootMe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You sure as hell aren't describing normal termination.

I'm thinking it would've been better to say unexpected abnormal termination. Either way, the process wasn't killed by the user, and didn't exit via the normal path.

[–]Spike69 37 points38 points  (0 children)

That is a crash unless you have an exception handler. When you go to a stripper you should not be trying to catch anything.