Is concurrency hard?
Joe Armstrong (AL/EAB)
joe.armstrong@REDACTED
Mon Nov 7 10:31:12 CET 2005
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED
> [mailto:owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED]On Behalf Of
> Marthin Laubscher
> Sent: den 6 november 2005 22:50
> To: erlang-questions@REDACTED
> Subject: RE: Is concurrency hard?
>
cut ...
> Maybe CSP's silent disfavour has something to do with what
> became of its
> author - according to the usingCSP website, he's at Microsoft
> Research.
"silent" yes - "disfavour" no
"silent admiration" would be more to the point.
In
http://www.erlang.org/ml-archive/erlang-questions/200507/msg00172.html
I said "The CSP work is probably the best ever way describing systems"
hardly disfavour.
CSP is howether not a programming *language* - it's a notation.
And I'm not sure I'd like "executable CSP" as a programming language.
I mentioned some of the problems in
http://www.erlang.org/ml-archive/erlang-questions/200508/msg00340.html
Tony has a very nice lecture at
http://research.microsoft.com/~thoare/StructuredConcurrent%20programming_files/v3_document.htm
Where he extols the virtues of "concurrency without shared memory" - and some
programming language constructs that would map very nicely into Erlang.
Tony is also "silent about Erlang" - but I wouldn't ready either approval or disapproval into
his silence.
As for him being at Microsoft this can surely only be good - he might be able to
teach the guys at MS how to structure their code. He does, after all, say that:
"Concurrency is best regarded as a programming structuring principle"
So if the MS guys heed his words the world's most popular OS might one day
improve.
<< Note: criticising MS's OS should in no way be thought of as endorsing
other, less popular OS's, they are merely less bad ... >>
/Joe
>
> Marthin Laubscher
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list