[erlang-questions] Is there a good source for documentation on BEAM?
Thu May 10 09:38:00 CEST 2012
> So perhaps the right approach is to do a kickstarter to fund someone writing a deep dive Erlang/OTP internals book?
> Complexity: roughly the level of writing a Linux kernel book, at a quick guess. Perhaps a bit easier.
That would be a vital spot on every erlang programmer's bookshelf for sure.
>>> Another argument might be that BEAM should be specified in detail in order
>> to be a suitable binary format for distribution,
>>> which is essentially what the JVM instruction set has become.
>> I suggested many years ago that Erlang should take a leaf out of Kistler's
>> book (or PhD thesis). The "Juice" system for Oberon compiled source
>> to abstract syntax trees, then cleverly compressed the ASTs and used them
>> as the binary distribution form. They came in smaller than .class files
>> and had no presuppositions about the target hardware (not even primitive
>> size and alignment if I recall correctly). The cost of decompressing and
>> generating native code was low, to the point where it was faster to
>> dynamically load Juice files than their equivalent of .so/.dll files, and
>> the generated code actually ran faster because the code generator knew
>> more about the environment of the target, including existing code. (I
>> don't know if the Juice runtime did cross-module inlining, but it would
>> have been possible.)
> Not a bad idea.
> Best regards,
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions