[erlang-questions] Forget Erlang on the Java VM. More language on the Erlang VM are needed!

Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB) ulf.wiger@REDACTED
Wed Nov 28 16:03:11 CET 2007

Joel Reymont skrev:
> On Nov 28, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Michael Regen wrote:
>> I guess the argument that Erlang's performance will certainly be  
>> lower under
>> another VM is right.
> This maybe harsh but I think anyone striving for Erlang on the XXX VM  
> gets it completely and irreversibly wrong! It's not the _syntax_ that  
> gives Erlang its greatest advantage. In fact, I hate the syntax. What  
> gives Erlang its ultimate advantage is the VM!
> The VM is what enables lightweight processes, etc. etc. etc.

So, Mono has, for example, Cairo bindings - something I recall you 
asking for for your IDE. It also has special support for XML.

When building an IDE, for example, would you not agree that strong
GUI support etc is more important than having lightweight processes?

If Erlang, including distributed erlang, is implemented on e.g. the
Mono VM, it ought to be perfectly feasible to have a heterogeneous 
network of nodes where some are Mono-based.

I'm not personally shopping for Erlang on any other VM, but I can
remember many complaints (most recently at the EUC) about Erlang/OTP not 
supporting the kind of enterprise interop technologies that many take 
for granted. I'm not sure that a CLR is the best or only way to get 
there, but if someone out there is willing to spend time exploring it, I 
think it's a worthy cause.

Ulf W

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list