Meyer, OO and concurrency

todd <>
Wed Jul 13 18:19:51 CEST 2005

Ulf Wiger wrote:

> Den 2005-07-13 16:31:55 skrev todd <>:
>> Joe Armstrong (AL/EAB) wrote:
>>> Now replace K by {Java, C++, C#, ...} and the word "object" by  
>>> "process" :-)
>> I won't argue that "good" native support is not better, butthe 
>> analogy  doesn't apply. How many threads do I really need?
> Oh, but can you see which ones they are?
> It's about as difficult as doing object modeling, you
> need to get into the mode of thinking before you realise
> what is a good candidate for a process.

It's somewhat pointless to argue about what's the best way. My response 
was that it is very doable in OO and it can work very well. That doesn't 
imply that I wouldn't want the world to be different. I would also want 
erlang to be more capable for performance related tasks as well.

> And since you are still not convinced, that also shows that
> there is a weakness.  ;-)

When we have people litteraly searching out nanoseconds in their 
algorithms and doing everything possible to guarantee task switch 
latency, then I do remain unconvinced.

> Only a few days ago, I listened to a complaint about someone
> who still maintains that faxes are superior to computers and
> email. That says fairly little about email, but much more
> about the person in question.

So sorry I have yet to give up my chisel and stone.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list