On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:25:14PM -0400, Bob Paddock wrote: > > In today's up and coming world of multi-core processors, > as anyone here looked at erlang?
I looked at it a few years ago. It has a rather nice concurrency model, but it also pretty much forces you into that model, which would seem to make it a bit unpractical in the real world, where you need to interface with other things that might have different models. My general thought on that sort of thing is that when you have a clever idea for how to organize/structure/architect your code, you should implement it as a library/framework within an architecture-neutral general purpose language. That way, when you have to interface to other stuff, you can do so without resorting to ugly kludges. Good languages can be naturally extended to support whatever such architectures you like in a convenient and straightforward way. Also, such languages never gain widespread acceptance, precisely because of that fact that in order to use the language, you have to buy into the architecture it dictates. There is limited flexibility to do things differently, and in the real world that's a major problem. If you strip out the concurrency model, Erlang seems to be just another functional langauge, and why do we need another one of those? That said, the current implementations seem to be remarkably robust for such a "fringe" language. That, I suppose, is a testament to its simplicity. -- Randall _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user