obscure erlang-related publication

Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB) ulf.wiger@REDACTED
Tue Mar 28 11:20:56 CEST 2006

Anyway, my purpose of calling attention to 
this paper is that it wasn't listed under 
'publications' at erlang.se. My impression from
reading through it was that it is of acceptable
quality (if not revolutionary), and that its 
conclusions are well in line with other papers,
e.g. comparing Erlang and SDL.

I've frequently (at least a few times every year)
had reason to explain to people that one reason why
programming in Erlang is productive is that it is 
at roughly the same level of abstraction as 
mainstream modeling languages (such as SDL and UML).

One more reference to a study that reaches the same
conclusion probably won't hurt.

Ulf W

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Lang [mailto:matthias@REDACTED] 
> Sent: den 28 mars 2006 10:44
> To: Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB)
> Cc: erlang-questions@REDACTED
> Subject: Re: obscure erlang-related publication
> Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB) writes:
>  > "A comparison of six languages for system level  > 
> description of telecom applications"
>  > Jantsch, Kumar, Sander et al.
>  > http://www.imit.kth.se/~axel/papers/2000/comparison.pdf
>  >
>  > I didn't see that under erlang.se/publications/
> Wading through it all, you get to this on page 8:
>   | These [the results] are the results of the judgment of one
>   | or several persons for each language. In particular there
>   | were 2 persons to evaluate Erlang, 3 for C++, 2 for Haskell,
>   | 4 for VHDL, 2 for SDL and 2 for ProGram.
> I.e. they asked between 4 and 15 people what they thought 
> about various aspects of one or more language and then put 
> the results in impressive-looking tables, assigned fancy 
> abbreviations and the odd greek letter before fudging around.
> They conclude that you can't conclude anything from the exercise.
> I agree completely.
> Matthias

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list