I'm aware of crash only software (isn't this how Erlang/OTP does things?), however this doesn't seem to be what the OP intended. Running your code without caring about data races means your data can be corrupted and program might not crash.
It actually depends on what the code does, we don't get much context on what the code is actually doing. It is completely possible that data corruption is not a concern because nothing is being written, or there are checksums or whatever...
In this case, it's different. The Erlang/OTP approach involves maintaining internal supervisor trees that are bound to the semantics of the VM and its language constructs, whereas the author's involves using an OS process supervisor (daemontools) to just reexec the program every time it crashes/hangs. The potentials for data corruption and tainted state is higher in the latter, though it's still relatively good for a surprising number of problems.
