Maybe Erlang is OO after all?
Richard A. O'Keefe
Mon Aug 25 07:52:46 CEST 2003
Kurt at DBC <> wrote a bunch of stuff from a somewhat
limited perspective. (It's good to see other people in NZ interested
in Erlang, though.)
This, ISTM, is also why in OO (admittedly Object Pascal, Java and
guessing at C++) threads are so difficult to manage, as they are
implicitly time-based, so the thread object can only _simulate_ being in
a distinct state (either by polling or blocking) when it is actually in
a different state during any time interval - and in no particular state
at a given point in time.
This is true, but it seems rather unfair to ignore all the languages
that were designed with concurrency in mind. (From a Smalltalk perspective,
by the way, Object Pascal, Java, and C++ hardly count as OO at all.)
A fairer comparison would be with Hewitt's "Actors".
More information about the erlang-questions