[erlang-questions] process dictionary, anyone?

Mats Cronqvist <>
Wed May 2 10:45:39 CEST 2007


Robert Virding wrote:
> Mats Cronqvist wrote:
>> Robert Virding wrote:
>>> Trouble is that it breaks the functional part of the language. Now 
>>> that is only really done in process dictionary, processes/message, 
>>> ports and ets. 
>>
>>    so erlang is functional, except for the process dictionary, 
>> messages, ports and ets? then perhaps it's time to stop pretending 
>> it's functional?
>>
 >
> Strange viewpoint!

   what i find strange is the viewpoint that no features should be added unless 
they are functional. with that line of reasoning message passing should never 
have been added either, which would somewhat limit the usefulness of the language.

 > We might as well then just add erlang like processes to Java and be done with.

   i'm convinced that soon enough a java-like language (javascript?) will 
incorporate erlang-style processes/message passing. and then erlang will, i 
fear, indeed be done.
C.f. http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/02/next-big-language.html

   mats



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list