Meyer, OO and concurrency

David Hopwood <>
Sun Jul 17 00:20:13 CEST 2005

todd wrote:
> David Hopwood wrote:
>> Of course, if a language implementation is running on an OS that is
>> hopelessly broken in respect of real-time issues, and does not allow
>> running *any* code with low latency, then the implementation will also
>> be hopelessly broken in that respect. This is just as true of C++ as it
>> is of Erlang.
> It's not difficult.

I agree that it isn't difficult: if you want a given set of real-time
guarantees, use a platform that supports those guarantees. But a platform
is (hardware, OS implementation, language implementation), not just an OS.

> Interrupt. How long till the task runs? The OS
> can guarantee that. A language can't.

What I said in my previous post applies just as much to interrupts as to any
other feature: sometimes it is possible for the language implementation to
work around problems with latency of interrupt handlers in the OS, and
sometimes it isn't.

David Hopwood <>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list