[erlang-questions] Question/Alternative on Frames Proposal [Warning: Long]

Kenneth Lundin <>
Mon May 21 14:54:19 CEST 2012


On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Garrett Smith <> wrote:

> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Richard O'Keefe <>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 19/05/2012, at 8:57 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> I apologize, this is somewhat off topic and not an answer to your
> question...
> >>
> >> But does anyone know where the Frames proposal stands vis-a-vis the
> >> OTP team's work on hashes?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you are asking.  The paper that you mentioned made it
> > quite clear that they were NOT experimenting with frames or anything in
> > the same area of design space.
>
> Richard, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
>
> That's a PDF of presentation slides from 2011 User Conf-- it lists
> "frames" in the title and as a input to their process.
>
> I read the document as a status update on their work, listing some
> performance results from various data structures.
>
> The "Conclusion and way forward" slide seems open ended.
>
> In any event, is not relevant to any discussion here what the OTP team
> is actually working on? Is this is a blip of interest in a decade old
> proposal that has no shot of getting into the language?
>
> Garrett
>

The conclusion from my talk at EUC November 2011 was like this:


> Conclusions and way forward
> › New better records
> – optionally named, possibly declared
> – few named fields
> – many instances
> › ------- and
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> › Hashmaps
> – many ”keys”
> – few instances
> › are two different things (but similar)
> › we want both
> › HAMT looks really promising for Hash Maps
> › but it might be hard to combine with one single representation
> › We have to decide what to address first
> › Probably some experimental implementation released during 2012
>

I think this clearly indicates that we intended to work on both "better
records" and "hashes".

Now I can as a fact tell you that we are addressing both.

We are prototyping an implementation of "hashes", or whatever we will call
them, and we are also prototyping a reference implementation of the frames
proposal.

We think that the frames proposal is interesting and think we need an
implementation so we can evaluate performance and compare it with records.
After the evaluation we will come to a decision and will also give more
details about possible changes/restrictions/additions we want to make
compared with the current frames proposal. What we find most interesting
with the frames proposal is the well thought semantics.

/Kenneth , Erlang/OTP, Ericsson


 _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120521/d03b0231/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list