Why do OS not support erlang's lightweight process?
Tue Aug 29 04:29:26 CEST 2006
I'm pretty sure Inferno http://www.vitanuova.com/index.html have
lightweight OS processes/threads.
It is probably possible to have a linux kernel written to support
processes which take up much fewer resource, are quicker to allocate,
context switch...but you would probably break so much stuff used by
other traditional *nix apps that you would end up with a special
purpose OS which runs nothing well except your apps meant for these
lightweight processes. I'm no kernel expert so I'll stop my
speculation here ;-).
ok, I can't resist...another fantasy option would be to build up new
alternate kernel level process/thread objects which have the
characteristics you want and "simply" have the OS scheduler be much
smarter to handle both heavy and lightweight processes. But I seem
to notice that experiments with developing "complex" schedulers
haven't done so well.
I did study inferno two years ago when I was on my overreaching
journey to find "better ways to build software". This journey led me
to study scala and erlang as well. erlang was the only thing that
was mature enough and could coexist well enough with existing *nix apps.
In another year, with the advent of cheap and easy to manage virtual
OSes running on a resource aplenty $5000 server, one probably could
much more seriously look at building apps with inferno as the app
itself would just sit in inferno running as its own vm running
happily alongside other *nix vms.
I think a erlang OS has been worked on by some gurus on this very
list...perhaps they can expand on this topic?
On Aug 29, 2006, at 6:20 AM, lang er wrote:
> If OS support erlang's lightweight process in kernel, many
> programming languages could have erlang's concurrent capability.I
> think it is not impossible.
More information about the erlang-questions