[erlang-questions] Question about Erlang and Ada

Dmitry Kolesnikov <>
Sat Dec 12 12:03:35 CET 2015


Hello,

There was an excellent post about Erlang an its possible place within Curiousity
http://jlouisramblings.blogspot.fi/2012/08/getting-25-megalines-of-code-to-behave.html

"Some of the traits of the Curiosity Rovers software closely resembles the architecture of Erlang. Are these traits basic for writing robust software?"

“Let it crash” phylosophy allows to react on failures caused by environment change. The “build it correct” requires you to predict the environment behavior well in advance. I think the concept of supervisor tree will help you to build a consistent state of you application. Properly defined supervision strategy enforces state “correctness”.   

Some time ago, I’ve looked into Erlang for robotics (drones) on the level of hobby project. It would be great to understand your application :-)

Best Regards, 
Dmitry


> On Dec 12, 2015, at 9:29 AM, Valentin Micic <> wrote:
> 
> PANTA RHEI !
> 
> "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.
> 
> V/
> 
> 
> 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
>> 
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> 
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list