[erlang-questions] Fwd: Is there a good source for documentation on BEAM?
Mon May 7 15:18:16 CEST 2012
At the very least, it's probably worth putting someone w/ the rest of
Erlang documentation, rather than buried on dropbox!
Joe Armstrong wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Joe Armstrong<erlang@REDACTED>
> Date: Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Is there a good source for
> documentation on BEAM?
> To: Jonathan Coveney<jcoveney@REDACTED>
> I did start writing a description but it's not very complete.
> This is on my list of things-to-do-one-day-when-you-get-time
> See http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4764922/beam.pdf
> If there is any interest I could up the priority :-)
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Coveney<jcoveney@REDACTED> wrote:
>> This question seems to come up now and again, and it's surprising to me that
>> a crucial part of the documentation isn't better documented. Is there a
>> reason that it is the case? Is the reason that there is no VM spec to give
>> the devs the flexibility to change the intermediate layer without having to
>> worry about backwards compatibility to the degree that Java does?
>> Thus far I've found a description of the opcodes:
>> and this resource on the file format:
>> But there doesn't seem to be a lot of high level talk about what the opcodes
>> do (a la the JVM specification, for example). I know it's not impossible,
>> and could always ask the guys at Erjang how they went about it, but thought
>> I'd ask here.
>> Please forgive a newbie question, and thanks in advance
>> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions mailing list
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
More information about the erlang-questions