[erlang-questions] process dictionary, anyone?

Mats Cronqvist mats.cronqvist@REDACTED
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
>>> ets.
>> 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 
non-functional bits.

   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 
final void"
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 mailing list