[erlang-questions] Erlang is *not* a implementation of the Actor model Re: Go vs Erlang for distribution

Miles Fidelman mfidelman@REDACTED
Tue Jun 24 23:05:21 CEST 2014

zxq9 wrote:

> I think the more important aspect here being that its very hard to be happy
> with concurrency in a world where you have to handle every combination of
> message*state, and that means fault tolerance is a neccessary component of any
> environment where one can happily build large concurrent systems. In
> particular, any large system is non-trivial, and concurrency itself is non-
> trivial. Without fault-tolerance you wind up with an explosively complex fault
> situation to handle.
> Come to think of it, I don't think it would be very easy to apply Erlang's
> concept of fault-tolerance without pattern matching as a central feature in
> many areas of the language. I could be wrong, I'm just trying to imagine an
> alternative without pattern matching -- and I don't see any alternative than
> to emulate it with exclusive guards or something (which still equates to
> pattern-matching, just less easy to read), which in the extreme case is almost
> as bad as the common practice in some languages of actually enumerating every
> negative case -- which usually vastly outnumber the positive cases -- and
> providing an exception handler for each.

Well, falling further down the rabbit hole ....

I kind of agree with you that massive concurrency and fault-tolerance go 

On the other hand, I kind of see pattern matching as more associated 
with message-oriented communication:  Somehow I don't see doing a lot of 
message selection and processing without pattern matching at the front end.



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

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list