[erlang-questions] process dictionary, anyone?
Wed May 2 13:18:27 CEST 2007
On 5/2/07, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@REDACTED> wrote:
> >I wonder what would be easier: to port the Erlang runtime to the JVM,
> >or to write a compiler for a Java-like language targeting the beam
> that's only if design and notation don't matter, and they do.
> to start with, is any form of concurrency compatible with an object-oriented language?
I don't see any incompatibility here. Of course, I assume we're not
talking about today's OO languages, but ones that take steps towards
the concurrency oriented paradigm. I mean, everything is evolving.
in other words, I think the "object as process" metaphor holds very nicely.
> or again: Erlang is a little gem; Java is a dung heap. why hide the one inside the other?
> i just don't get it. it's not even as though (as with C, say) you'd thereby be getting
> access to a great set of run-time libraries.
Java is just an example. It seems like a probable candidate just by
the sheer mass of users and libraries (of which BTW I assume most will
be reusable on the improved platform).
IMHO, the not so distant future will give us "erlang processes" at the
OS level and later on at the hardware level. I have trouble imagining
that there will only be a single programming language in use and I
think it is a safe bet that one of them will be a C extension.
My natural curiosity is pushing me into exploring alternative ways to
do things. Some are dead-ends, but some will lead forward. How else to
More information about the erlang-questions