Dynamic languages are the future

Richard Kilmer <>
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:

http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-1.html

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.

>
> --
> http://wagerlabs.com/
>
>
>
>
>




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list