Fail-soft

Automatically repairing errors and continuing execution goes against the grain of software engineering, for good reason, but I've come to see that it's what makes the web go 'round. Robert O'Callahan has an interesting market-oriented take on error recovery:

...the economics of error recovery --- the fact that recovering from malformed input, instead of hard failure, is a competitive advantage for client software so in a competitive market it's sure to develop and you might as well put it in specifications...

In other words: ignore the errors, users will love you, and you win. We may not like it, but you fight economics at your own peril.

Case exhaustiveness for interactivity

In functional programming we're very good at exhaustive case analysis of our data definitions. But I've found I'm pretty bad at reasoning about cases in interactive programs. (Embarrassingly, I recently lost a week's worth of data in an Ajax application I wrote due to a bad response to an unpredicted server failure.)

What are all the possible actions the user could perform? What are all the failure cases? What are all the possible interleavings of interactions? These are harder questions than enumerating variants of a disjoint union.

I think this is where dynamic safety (e.g., runtime tag checking in dynamically typed languages or case-dispatch catchalls in statically typed languages) is so critical: if you don't have a sound model for enumerating the space of possible behaviors, you have to make sure that there's some reasonable recovery programmed into the system for when you encounter an event you didn't predict. This reminds me of recovery-oriented computing and Erlang's "let it fail" philosophy.