Meyer, OO and concurrency

todd <>
Wed Jul 13 20:59:00 CEST 2005


Ulf Wiger wrote:

>> I am not trying to educate anyone, that's way too hard..I am just  
>> responding to a post. You are free to consider
>> me a relic from the age of fax if you wish.
>
> You accounted for the views of others that C++ was a safer
> and more all-round choice than Erlang.

You've got to be kidding. I said just the opposite several times.

The contention that you can't do concurrency on an OO langauge like
C++ is just plain wrong.

That you can do it better in other languages like erlang is unquestioned,
assuming a suitable definition of better. If better involves low latency 
then
erlang is not better. If better is related to the concurrency model then
erlang is better.

Partitioning a large embedded system into two different language domains
is very unnatractive to many many people. Having been the one to try and
sell this,  I know. Call that the myopic application of the hammer-nail 
pattern,
if it pleases you.

Can I do concurrency in C++ well enough to keep a single language for
the lowest part of the system to the highest? Yes.

 > This is a group of users that has never been targeted by Erlang.

That's the embedded world. It has the ultimate mix of high performance
code, mixed with scaling issues, mixed with low performance code. To
ask people to partition the system using a completely new language they have
no experience with is not attractive enough. Everything you need to do in
erlang you also have to be able to do on the C++ side as well. If you could
make it so it could all be done in one language that would be attractive.
So, I know I am wasting my time saying all this, but my original intent was
to counter the original assertion, not comment on erlang.




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list