Replacing the werl.exe GUI, take 2
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" <> writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Hague" <>
> > 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,
Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
More information about the erlang-questions