Extending Functionality: gen_server_ext
Mon Mar 24 04:15:28 CET 2003
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:50:42 -0800
Jay Nelson <> wrote:
> I have proposed no change to the language and no change
> to the way an erlang process operates. Where my goals differ from
> Chris' goals is that I am new to having cheap, easy processes
> and would like to exploit them to their fullest (he may already
> be beyond that by a couple orders of magnitude in the number
> of processes and is thinking of other things).
Nah, I've just got a wicked conservative streak (literally, not
politically) verging on Luddism - and a bad case of NIH ;)
No matter how cheap processes are, I'd just never feel quite right
modelling things that strike me as "really static" with them.
At the same time, I'm a big proponent of orthogonality - parts should
interchangeable, with general rules which have only as many exceptions as
Same goes for simplicity - things should be as simple as possible, but *no
simpler* (or you'll lose something valuable.)
I have been having some problems following most of this thread lately
because it does seem to be getting rather involved and in danger of being
bogged down in minutiae. But, I probably just need to think about it
more; gimme a couple more days...
More information about the erlang-questions