[erlang-questions] Ideas for a new Erlang
Wed Jun 25 14:36:13 CEST 2008
Vlad Dumitrescu writes:
> A general comment is that I think it would be useful with more realistic
> examples. The counter process gives little insight into why channels would
> be useful, and the examples for the new binding mechanism are only of the
> form "Var = expr" instead of more general pattern matches.
True. OTOH, more substantial examples take time to write and might
sometimes obscure the ideas. In my case, it was a choice of using
brief examples or not presenting these ideas at all. I hope the
examples were sufficient to explain the ideas.
> Maybe we should have a place where such suggestions could be presented? Not
> everything is ready for an EEP. Searching the list archives is slightly
> tedious and it's difficult to keep the discussion in the right thread. Maybe
> at trapexit?
> Regarding channels, there are several other paradigms that might be
> interesting to explore. One is the "process as stream processor" one, where
> processes work just like the UNIX toolkit programs by processing input
> messages and sending them forward. This allows piping of processes to
> compose functionality. With an appropriate syntax and machinery, the
> programmer need only specify the relevant functionality desired.
I was going to explain how this could be easily implemented in Erlang
but now I see that you have already done that :-) These are of course
ancient ideas; the data flow languages are very similar. You might
find the paper by Jack Dennis (referred to in my paper) worth reading.
> This is just a teaser for an improvement to my previous attempt at
> http://www.erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2007-May/026467.html :-)
> I will try to make available a presentation, with more details, examples and
> implementation proposals. (Since it's vacation time, it may take a few
Nice example snipped.
More information about the erlang-questions