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 mailing list