Meyer, OO and concurrency

todd <>
Thu Jul 14 23:00:14 CEST 2005


Ulf Wiger wrote:

> Den 2005-07-14 19:10:58 skrev todd <>:
>
>> No. It's about managing risk. You are asking people to use a 
>> language  they know nothing about, that uses a completely different 
>> paradigm, for  which they have no people experienced in the language, 
>> for which they  have no idea what will happen if things go wrong, 
>> and  provides  facilities that they know can be done in C++ and does 
>> not require  duplicate infrastructures.
>
>
> I don't think that's what they're asked to do.
> Most of the time, what we ask people is to at
> least _study_ the issue. Quite often, Erlang is dismissed
> based on prejudice and, at most, a very cursory glance.

At a telecom company I worked at we studied the issue. I was the erlang 
proponent.
It may be that people do study, but don't come to the conclusion
you think obvious because they value something different than you do.

>
> If you're investing millions annually into developing complex
> software, why is it unreasonable to put some money into actually
> _investigating_ if new implementation techniques might shave off
> a portion of that, perhaps getting you to market faster, and
> allowing you to save money on maintenance as well?

Perhaps is the big word. Unless it's a clear win people want to stick
with what they know will work.

>
> Mike Williams used to say: "if you don't conduct experiments
> at the beginning of your project, your whole project will
> become an experiment".

Every project is an experiment. Which is why people want to
stick with what has worked in the past. Conducting a little
experiment won't change the weight of experience. The interesting book, 
paradox of
choice,  talks about how people are risk adverse and would rather
take a smaller win now than a potentially bigger but less sure win
later.

>> Don't trivialize what is involved.
>
>
> At some point, many of us have had to choose: keep pushing
> or take a step back and quit trying to make people see the
> light. This is not trivialising the issue (well, to some extent
> it is, but only relatively)

When you say the reason people don't want to use erlang is simply
because they don't want to use multiple languages,
that is trivializing the issue.






More information about the erlang-questions mailing list