Upcoming article in Dr. Dobbs'

[Thomas Lindgren]

--- Vlad Dumitrescu <vlad_dumitrescu@REDACTED>
wrote:

> Yes, but when the "others" will realize what's
> needed, what stops them to
> incorporate the Erlang model into (for example) Java
> or C#, or even C++? Given
> that technical wars are won with massive marketing
> and not necessarily by being
> best, the result is not given...

Nothing will necessarily stop them, but it's not
trivial to get it right. (Note that sometimes leaving
things out of the language can be as helpful as
putting them in.)

> I think there's a problem with using a niched
> language: it's difficult to find developers.

On one hand, it's easy enough to train programmers in
Erlang. On the other, there is always resistance to
the unknown, from managers ("nobody ever got fired for
...") as well as programmers (at least the class of
them who won't want to sully their CVs with non-Java
work).

> ... Even if Erlang development is so much more
> efficient, one still needs a
> critical mass of developers in order to handle new
> projects, maintenance and
> support.

Start hiring and they will come, is my guess. What is
needed from the developer perspective is a viable herd
of commercial projects, really, so that cancelling one
doesn't mean the developers have to move on to Java.

(Though it would also be nice to get a python or ruby
effect of developer interest in this regard. Maybe the
silent masses of Wings3D users can be drafted?)

> On the other hand, instead of changing Java
> (language and VM) to fit the Erlang
> model, maybe it's easier to compile Java-like syntax
> to beam. After all, syntax
> is just, well, syntax.

I'm not so sure it's that simple (you need semantics
too). And even if it was feasible, I'd strongly prefer
to keep the Erlang syntax :-)

Best,
Thomas



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com