obscure erlang-related publication
Richard A. O'Keefe
Wed Mar 29 08:09:14 CEST 2006
Matthias Lang <matthias@REDACTED> wrote
about the paper
> "A comparison of six languages for system level
> description of telecom applications"
> Jantsch, Kumar, Sander et al.
to the effect that he wasn't really impressed.
Neither was I.
They are comparing languages for *hardware* and software concurrent
- So they don't include Ada, which is a mature language with excellent
tool support and good support for concurrency and structuring. (And
was in 2000.)
- So they include C++, and then find to their great surprise that
it doesn't do concurrency. They _don't_ consider any of the
parallel/distributed versions of C++.
- So they include Haskell, but find to their great surprise that
it doesn't do concurrency. They _don't_ consider Concurrent Haskell.
(Which I am pretty sure was around in 2000. Certainly Concurrent
Clean, which is pretty Haskell-like, was around then, and really
was concurrent, although recent versions aren't.)
- So they find, apparently to their surprise, that VHDL, which was
designed for specifying hardware, is good at specifying hardware,
and the other languages aren't.
- They DO try to ensure that they aren't just reporting their prejudices
by writing an application of the kind they care about in the several
languages, but then they deliberately choose to say nothing about the
code they got or their experience of writing it.
Their evaluation method basically amounts to making your preconceived
ideas of what kind of solution you are looking for seem respectable by
wrapping (arbitrary!) numbers around them.
Basically, the only thing I learned from that paper was "these people
are interested in this topic". No, I tell a lie. The other thing I
learned was that I have been a complete fool to myself by waiting until
I actually had some results worth discussing before publishing ideas.
Now I know how to get my publication count high...
More information about the erlang-questions