[erlang-questions] How small could an Erlang emulator be?

ok <>
Thu Mar 15 00:14:40 CET 2007


On 14 Mar 2007, at 11:33 pm, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> Personally, I think it is the model that is the most important part,
> as I don't really care how it is implemented or what language it is
> programmed in, as long as it works as advertised. I believe it was the
> same thing that Richard was aiming at with the question.

It isn't, but it should have been.  Excellent point.

> In this light, what I see as a future path to take is to abstract away
> the "process managing machinery" from the actual "code running". Then
> we could have a world filled of "process containers" (the Erlang nodes
> of today) that would run on large and small CPUs and would run code
> implemented in pC, pJava, pRuby or even pINTERCAL (where the 'p'
> prefix is referring to a parallel extension of the respective language
> supporting the LIP model).

No, not pIntercal.  (I never did manage to get my "Object-Oriented  
Intercal" paper
published anywhere, but writing it taught me more about Intercal than  
I ever wanted
to know.)  The only thing worse would be pMalbolge.





More information about the erlang-questions mailing list