[erlang-questions] Question about Erlang and Ada

Valentin Micic v@REDACTED
Sat Dec 12 08:29:49 CET 2015


"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." 
(Heraclitus, 535-475 BC)

Seeing the above, which approach do you think would be more appropriate to what you're trying to achieve?

In my view: "let it crash" will force you to adjust the "man" that enters the river (you can always learn something from the crash).
By the same analogy, "build is correct", will ignore the river (if the build is correct, changes to the river, and hence the river, are irrelevant).
The same should hold for robots. I think.


On 12 Dec 2015, at 9:02 AM, Martin wrote:

> Hi everyone 
> I have a project in the field of robotics were I consider using Erlang and SWI Prolog for a real time system.  However since I am open for all kind of input, I wrote to a company that sells Ada solutions (since the language is made for critical systems) and asked them to make a case for Ada vs Erlang. They wrote back that they didn't know enough about Erlang to comment on the "let it crash" philosophy but they wrote that: 
> Ada philosophy is "build is correct". That's achieved through an extensive specification language (including contract-based programming) together with dynamic and static verification techniques. 
> So my question is:  
> Do you think that there are times when Adas philosophy is better then Erlang, in a real time system, or is  the Erlang model always better? 
> Appreciate all help I can get 
> Best regards 
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20151212/d2599ba0/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list