Wed Jun 2 11:28:10 CEST 2004
... cut ...
> I'm wondering if anyone else on this list who loves Erlang as much as
> I do but has been forced to work in pure C++ has attempted this? I'm
> looking at bringing over:
> - one mailbox per concurrent activity
> - selective receive
> - send/receive as the only synchronization primitive allowed
> (we'll just have to enforce this one through development processes
> and code reviews)
> - no program globals (only registered processes; also will need to
> be enforced through development processes and code reviews)
> - "lightweight" processes.
... cut ...
This philosophy is if you like one of the key ideas in Erlang (the
others have to do with error handling) - Interestingly we are not the
only people to like this approach.
Ask Mr. Google about "indigo" and "longhorn" - and you'll see what I
<<incidentally if you want to "motivate" your approach tell 'em about
Indigo - and call what you're doing "service oriented programming" --
then you'll be buzz word compatible and hopefully get a MAR  of
A well-tried method of program development is to spend the odd
5 minutes over and some of your valuable evening time hacking
time on an Erlang prototype that does everything that the C++ program
will eventually do (at some indeterminate point in the future) -
this can then be "demonstrated" to management.
"I hacked up this little thing at home just to clarify some design
issues -- we can use it as a bench mark/reference implementation/...
... look at this, I've got 100,000 sessions going, course the Java system
that we're building will only handle 2000 sessions but that's a limitation
of Java ....
 Management Acceptance Rating.
More information about the erlang-questions