[erlang-questions] design pattern question for messaging

Miles Fidelman mfidelman@REDACTED
Thu Jul 24 00:39:18 CEST 2014

Raoul Duke wrote:
>>> I keep coming back to wishing for an environment where the basic "unit
>>> of computation" has both actor-like properties and object-like
>>> properties.  Long term persistence, data encapsulation, plus
>>> message-passing concurrency.
> so everything comes with problems, so there's no perfect answer, but
> the longer i use OO and stuff the more i think we're all just
> brainwashed into using it when it is just plain bad. actors are maybe
> less bad somehow (not that Erlang is actors per Hewitt et. al.) but
> even if they are less bad than shared mutable state, i hardly think
> they are the best. dataflow a la gpars or oz or fbp whatever might be
> a step up, as might any number of other things like
> functional-relational. (yes, Erlang exists and has been proven to work
> yadda.) tho if i had to do things along these lines, i'd wish that
> clusterken would be a viable product.
no, no, no, .... not problems - but design challenges and on opportunity 
to work on new concepts! :-)

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list