BEA offers real-time version of WebLogic server

Rick Pettit <>
Wed Sep 28 19:28:38 CEST 2005


On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:13:30PM +0200, Joel Reymont wrote:
> Well, I do have some beef with Erlang, although I would not go to  
> Java or C/C++ or Python. Haskell is my current enfatuation.
> 
> 1) Erlang is not a panacea. You should leave some stuff outside  
> probably but linked in drivers are a major pain in the rear.
> 
> So if I were doing a trading system I would link in the algorithms.  
> Talking to external stuff through pipes or sockets is a kludge, really.

Talking to external components (Expect scripts, C binaries, etc) has always
been trivial for me. What's wrong with the port mechanism? When using 
binary communication, is that not fast enough for you?

> 2) I think Erlang is most suited for applications where high  
> computational performance is not of essense. What's the right term,  
> apps that are not CPU-bound? I wouldn't do a trading system in  
> Erlang, for example.

I have some very CPU-bound code running on Erlang/OTP systems with excellent
uptime and very little problems. When it isn't fast enough I will tweak--but
I'm not there yet.

> I know of no other platforms that offer transparent process  
> distribution. A lot of other platforms offer lightweight concurrency,  
> though. Haskell (Concurrent Haskell?), has STM (shared transactional  
> memory) which I'm dying to try in a highly concurrent setting.

Why not just use mnesia?

> I think that if you modify STM to save to save or the network you'll  
> get... Mnesia! You would still not get distributed processes with the  
> node encoded in the process id, though.

Why bother?

-Rick



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list