Well, of course, it is "possible" to implement anything in a Turing-equivalent language, but I am curious what features of Erlang or Termite are difficult to implement with MPI primitives and Scheme. For example, "process migration" in Scheme MPI could be simply passing a continuation from one node to another -- something that would take one line of code using the s11n and mpi eggs in Chicken. My own needs for distributed programming turned out to be very simple. I am not even using all the features in the current mpi egg, so I am curious to see and hear about real-world applications that use some seriously complicated distributed programming features.
I would agree that the MPI library on its own is on a much lower level than either Termite or Erlang, but I would argue that Scheme+MPI is a different beast altogether. As for "that licensing thing" you haven't even asked whether I might dual-license my code for the purposes of your projects, but are instead acting like a petulant five-year-old who threatens to take his toys and go home if everybody doesn't do his bidding. I am obviously not interested in providing my code to petulant five-year-olds, but I will certainly consider dual-licensing to serious developers with interesting projects, if that would lead to a more widespread use of Chicken. -Ivan "Leonardo Valeri Manera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm sure its possble to implement most if not all, but, termite > provides those parts of the erlang model which make the > message-passing model interesting already, without needing to > implement them manually. > > There's more to the erlang model than just using a good > message-passing library - I'm talking of things like process migration > ... > > Plus of course there's that licensing thing that means if I wanted to > use MPI i would have to roll my own chicken binding to it :) > > Cheers, > Leo _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users