Upcoming article in Dr. Dobbs'

Vlad Dumitrescu vlad_dumitrescu@REDACTED
Mon Jan 10 15:53:53 CET 2005

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dominic Williams" <erlang-list@REDACTED>
> > 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++?
> > that technical wars are won with massive marketing and not necessarily by
> > best, the result is not given...
> Even so, they are unlikey to /remove/ the existing
> thread model. So those systems will continue to be
> plagued with bugs.

Yes, but if let's say Java 9.0 has *also* the means to create isolated processes
using message passing, then people will quickly realize that it's much easier to
use them instead of the old threads.

> > I think there's a problem with using a niched language: it's difficult to
> > developers.
> Although managers frequently use this argument, I
> believe it is a fallacy. I have seen enough problems
> developing in C++ with very experienced people to
> prefer using a language which is safe to use after a
> couple of weeks training.

The realm of politics is too complex for me :-) Fallacy or not, some managers
seem still believe that and act upon that belief. And while there are people
wanting to learn a new language and then doing bleeding-edge development, I'm
not so sure about those that will have to maintain and support "old stuff". As
things stand now, the CVs look better with "J2EE" in them than "OTP"...

> > On the other hand, instead of changing Java (language and VM) to fit the
> > model, maybe it's easier to compile Java-like syntax to beam. After all,
> > is just, well, syntax.
> The problem with Java and C++ is not just the syntax,
> it's conceptual, it's the concurrency model.

Exactly my point. Let them use the Erlang concurrency model!


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list