[erlang-questions] process dictionary, anyone?
Tue Apr 24 13:25:50 CEST 2007
Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> --- Mats Cronqvist <mats.cronqvist@REDACTED> wrote:
>> Robert Virding wrote:
>>> Trouble is that it breaks the functional part of
>> the language. Now that
>>> is only really done in process dictionary,
>> processes/message, ports and
>> so erlang is functional, except for the process dictionary, messages, ports
>> and ets? then perhaps it's time to stop pretending it's functional?
> Erlang also uses message passing, except for ets, dets and mnesia. So let's
> just stop this sick pretense, shall we? Erlang is really an imperative,
> shared-memory language.
my point was that for lots of people, the key features of erlang are the
using the argument that something is bad because it "breaks the functional
part of the language" is bogus. it's the (clever) broken-ness that makes it good
to begin with. obviously, this does not mean that the opposite (everything that
breaks the functional part is good) is true.
> PS. And I for one welcome our new object-oriented masters.
right on! time to cut your hair and get a real job writing "public static
200 times a day.
> PPS. Maybe it wouldn't have been banned if we had thought of this in the
> first place? Dang.
getting banned by ericsson should be considered a stamp of approval...
but sadly you're probably correct. i think the lack of OO, along with the
prolog-y syntax, were key factors in the ban (not that anyone would admit it).
More information about the erlang-questions