[erlang-questions] New draft of frames proposal (was Re: Frames proposal)
Fri May 4 03:54:46 CEST 2012
On 3/05/2012, at 10:55 PM, Max Lapshin wrote:
>> - They have no default value
>> - Only atoms may be keys
> These two poins are very interesting to discuss.
> Problem is with handling external data.
Frames are very explicitly a replacement for RECORDS.
You cannot currently use records in external data.
EEP 20 (http://www.erlang.org/eeps/eep-0020.html)
has now been around for nearly four years. It offers
a permanent fix to the limited size of the atom table,
a fix which has been used before in another concurrent
That's not the only way to fix the atom table problem.
SWI Prolog offers true multicore concurrency AND a
garbage collected atom table. That's been around for
a few years now too.
By any engineering standard I can think of, fixing this
vulnerability in Erlang should have very high priority.
The frames proposal presupposed that this flaw has been
fixed somehow. We *cannot* let this flaw warp Erlang
programming for the rest of our lives.
> We will not be able to use frames for handling user data if only atoms
> can be keys, but if we allow to store atoms, binaries and strings as
> keys, we will get a mess with different ways to introduce keys.
We *WILL* be able to use frames for handling user data
WHEN THE ATOM TABLE BUG IS FIXED.
And it is LONG past time for that to happen.
More information about the erlang-questions