[erlang-questions] Fear and Loathing in Programming La La Land

[Miles Fidelman]

Jan Burse wrote:
> Miles Fidelman schrieb:
>> If anything, choice of tools can drive the architecture of a system
>> (Erlang begats even-driven actor architectures, Java begats
>> object-oriented ones.)
>
> ?? Do you think Erlang is a tool ??

Well... more like a toolbox containing a collection of tools for for 
building and executing systems - comprised of one-or-more instances of a 
run-time environment, a compiler, a language, a collection of 
pre-written components (OTP), and a variety of user-facing tools for 
putting pieces together and executing them.

And it happens that this particular toolbox is good for building systems 
with some particular architectural characteristics: massive concurrency, 
message passing, shared nothing.  I.e., it's a toolbox that's 
particularly suited to the actor design pattern (architecture).
>
> The language Erlang comes with a tool-set
> (top-level, compilers, etc..) and the
> language Erlang supports a special runtime
> architecture.
>
> I have only put three angels on the pin,
> at least this is how I see the world. One
> has to distinguish between:
> - The Erlang language.
> - The Erlang tool-set.
> - The Erlang runtime.
> - What else?

I think you miss the point: Arguing about which comes first, 
architecture or tools, (or chicken or egg), is akin to arguing about how 
man angels can fit on the head of a pin.  The answer is "yes."

> Same for other languages such as Java,
> C++, etc.. Usually language is the
> interface between tool and architecture.
>

I'd frame it as language is the way one represents an architecture so 
that it can be implemented.




-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra