FAQ terminology harmonisation
Wed Apr 2 17:12:30 CEST 2003
Joe Armstrong wrote:
> You have to ask the question: What is Erlang good at? -
> the answer is not *everything* - the answer is that it
> is good at distribution and fault-tolerant stuff - it's
> not good at sequential "poking around in memory" stuff ...
There is a vast area between the two extremes, though, including such
20001 ICFP Judges' Prize winner
but as you worked on two of these, you already know this :)
Unintentional though it may be, Erlang fills a general programming void.
Haskell is still too academic to bank on. ML and OCaml are often too
static. Lisp has grown crusty in certain ways and can be awkward after
using more modern functional syntax (e.g. Lisp's LET). Python is overly
Of course one loophole is that "fault tolerant" can be extended to mean "all
More information about the erlang-questions