Dynamic languages are the future
Wed Aug 30 15:57:44 CEST 2006
On Aug 30, 2006, at 4:47 AM, Joel Reymont wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:40 AM, Nick Linker wrote:
>> I wonder why Erlang is not Lisp? I mean why inventors of Erlang
>> chose to create its own language instead of creating just ERTS-
>> specific library for LISP (or at least Scheme)?
>> Parentheses? :-)
> You don't have the process abstraction built into the language so
> Erlang cannot be recreated as Lisp, IMO. People are trying to do
> Erlang-like libraries for Lisp (MU-PROC) but they are still based
> on top of system threads which eliminates all the advantages, IMO.
Yep, and this article from January is a good presentation of the
issues with theads:
They speak positively of Erlang in there, although they imply that
people will not switch. Of course, in the Ruby community we felt
that people would never switch from languages like Java to Ruby...but
then came Rails and switch they are! I think people underestimate
the power of frameworks geared toward solving specific issues as a
draw for others outside a language community. I am just learning
Erlang and am very much enjoying it so far.
More information about the erlang-questions