Replacing the werl.exe GUI, take 2

Bjorn Gustavsson bjorn@REDACTED
Wed Aug 17 09:09:43 CEST 2005

At least historically, sockets have been faster than pipes
on Windows. So that's what we use for communication with
port programs (if performance is important).

I don't know whether pipe performance has improved on Windows
in recent versions.


"Vlad Dumitrescu" <vlad_dumitrescu@REDACTED> writes:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "James Hague" <james.hague@REDACTED>
> > Logically, this should be easy:  write my own application that starts
> > up werl.exe in the background, with the GUI disabled, communicating
> > via pipes.  Standard UNIX-fare.  Except if it were really this easy to
> > do under Windows, I'd expect the Erlang team would have already done
> > this.  So what's the catch?
> I wrote an application like this, for some years ago. From what I
> remember, there was a small but noticeable delay when communicating
> with the Erlang process. Pipes in Windows are a little sluggish (or
> were, don't know about XP or similar).
> With todays faster machines, there's probably no catch. Possibly still
> slower than communicating with beam.dll directly, but my guess is that
> it would be good enough.
> I didn't go on with it because I seldom use werl anyway, so other
> projects felt more important.
> best regards,
> Vlad

Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list