Meyer, OO and concurrency
Thu Jul 14 18:23:42 CEST 2005
Peter-Henry Mander wrote:
> Hi Gurus,
> Sorry but I've got to stick my oar in.
> I've found that modelling a OO system in Erlang recovers the original
> concept of objects as concurrent actors.
- Erlang does not garbage-collect processes when they are waiting
unconditionally for a message that can never be sent.
- Erlang Pids are forgeable, and it is possible to enumerate the Pids
of all processes (which was prohibited in actor systems).
- processes in Erlang implementations, although they are more lightweight
than threads, are still a bit too heavyweight to be used in the same
way as objects.
These are mainly implementation rather than language design issues,
although minor language/API changes would be needed to make Pids
> I ask myself *why* has it taken soooo long to recognise the need for
> concurrency? But then again, the OO paradigm took a *very* long time to
> become mainstream.
Perhaps it is only because computer science is such a young field, that
we expect changes to be adopted quickly. In other fields, fundamental
changes in approach do take decades to become adopted, and it isn't
David Hopwood <>
More information about the erlang-questions