Erlang is getting too big (Long and a lot of shouting :-)

Thomas Lindgren thomasl_erlang@REDACTED
Tue Oct 14 13:56:38 CEST 2003

--- Joe Armstrong <joe@REDACTED> wrote:
>   Where should we be going?
>   =========================
>   * improve concurrency
>   I'd like to see more processes with better
>   isolation -

What is missing?

>   * GC of everything, atom tables, code

An implementation thing, rather than a language thing,
I'd say. But I agree.

>   * First Order Code
>   First order code with GC would be *wonderful* -
> even better than
> structs (which is just sugar)

It might be a good idea. Some way of slicing, dicing
and gluing together modules with code change would
make _my_ life easier at least :-)

Also, it would help in making fun:s survive loading a
new module version.

>   * Agent extensions

What would those be? And why are they interesting?

>   SECURITY (sorry I'm shouting again)

Only a problem if we can't trust our surroundings?

(The last two suggest new application areas, I guess?)

>   We should not  add things which makes programming 
> a little bit more
> convenient (which is after all what a lot of the
> language changes do) -
> we should add thing so we can easily write
> applications that nobody else can write.

Hear, hear. I fully agree.


Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list