forget

C.Reinke <>
Fri Jun 7 21:15:27 CEST 2002


> |>   I am becoming  more and more convinced that  Erlang should be judged
> |> as a concurrent language than as an FP langauge.
> 
> A concurrent language like OCCAM????
> 
> :-)
> 
> /mike

I used to think little of OCCAM, because it didn't seem to be
designed for the things I expected from a programming language.

But with that background, I kept running into surprises when
talking to folks in our local concurrency group - they looked at 
me as if they had no idea what language I might be complaining 
about, until they finally realised: "oh, you mean _normal_ occam..".

Here's a relevant excerpt from their group projects page:

  http://www.cs.ukc.ac.uk/research/groups/crg/research_interests.html

  Occam has also been made considerably more flexible, enabling it to
  be used way beyond its original target application area (embedded
  systems). Extensions include user-defined operators, native thread
  support, dynamic process loading, persistence and mobile processes -
  a key research issue being to achieve all this without compromising
  parallel security or efficiency. 

Would be nice if new-Occam (or whatever they may call it) and Erlang
folks would know more about each other's work ;-)

Claus


PS. I guess they are talking about 

      Kent Retargetable occamTM Compiler (KRoC)
      http://www.cs.ukc.ac.uk/projects/ofa/kroc/

    Both pages refer to a conference on "Communicating 
    Process Architectures" you might be interested in - 
    the reference on the KRoC page seems to be the recent one..



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list