Meyer, OO and concurrency

todd <>
Thu Jul 14 21:10:51 CEST 2005


David Hopwood wrote:

> todd wrote:
>
>> Joe Armstrong (AL/EAB) wrote:
>>
>>> What does "If better involves low latency then Erlang is not better."
>>> mean?
>>>
>>> I can think of a lot of definitions of latency - in some an Erlang
>>> implementation will be faster than a C implementation, in others it 
>>> will be the other way around.
>>>
>> If you think latency is in the language then I am confused. It's a 
>> property of the OS when using OS services.
>
>
> No, it's a property of any software component when using the services
> of that component. At the language level, the relevant questions are
> "What obstacles does the language put in the way of writing components
> with guaranteed low latency? Or with low expected latency?" Similar
> questions also apply to language implementations.

I am blocking on an a semaphore which is an OS construct. Sombody 
unblocks me through an OS sempahore call. That schedules my task to run, 
in the OS. The OS runs my task. What's the language have to do with any 
of that?





More information about the erlang-questions mailing list