[erlang-questions] Shared memory and message passing
Wed Sep 6 05:09:34 CEST 2006
I think everyone can easily agree that Joe's position is
correct...Smalltalk VMs have kept the "everything is an object" at
the language level and optimized things at compile/runtime.
The big difference between using erlang and Smalltalk, for me, is
that in Smalltalk I knew what these under-the-hood optimizations
were...I knew how characters, integers, symbols, etc... were
represented internally and this knowledge allowed me to write more
I only know bits and pieces about how erlang does its "share nothing"
but optimize internally magic...
This sort of info would make a great chapter in an upcoming book or
series of online posts. lists, tuples, large binaries, dictionaries,
ets/dets...how do these things make efficient use of the underlying
VM or how does the underlying VM/compiler optimize these structures
On Sep 5, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Joe Armstrong ((TN/EAB)) wrote:
> This kind of usage is, I guess OK, if it's hidden from the
> user as part of an language implementation, but it should
> definitely not be exposed to the application programmer.
> It's rather like garbage collection - or page table manipulation
> ok for a very small number of system programmers to use, but
> forbidden in regular applications
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joel Reymont [mailto:]
>> Sent: den 5 september 2006 11:02
>> To: Joe Armstrong (TN/EAB)
>> Subject: Shared memory and message passing
>> What about using shared memory to optimize message passing
>> and avoid copying memory?
>> This does not involve locks or critical sections, right?
>> Thanks, Joel
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions