[erlang-questions] The future of Erlang and BEAM

Radek poprosturadek@REDACTED
Sat Feb 11 17:03:17 CET 2012

Well, I think it depends. It's true that using default concurrency 
libraries is quite difficult and error prone but as I said before, thare 
are others which mimics Erlang approach (and do it well, just looking at 

But, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to run anything massively 
concurrent on JVM; that's one of reasons I've started this topic.


W dniu 2012-02-11 15:44, Miles Fidelman pisze:
> Radek wrote:
>> Hi Miles,
>> Well, although I didn't mean to write a new language (I meant writing 
>> Erlang-for-JVM, but rather as a DSL), I agree that Erlang IS very 
>> mature and stable. And of course, it started as a industry-level 
>> language, so it's designed to operate as such.
>> I was just wondering if and maybe we could benefit from being hosted 
>> on JVM which is, although not THAT industrial-level, also capable of 
>> being used in such conditions and is most popular VM on the world (so 
>> far). The obvious advantage of using Erlang in such conditions would 
>> be (apart from above) just not using verbose Java, which is big plus 
>> on it's own :) (in my opinion).
>> So, if we could have both of the worlds, i.e. industry-level of OTP 
>> and JVM ubiquity, that would be something huge I think.
> But why would I want to run massively concurrent software on a JVM?  
> What makes Erlang different are its underpinnings.  Massive 
> concurrency on top of a JVM is just broken.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list