Redirecting to haskell-cafe@, where this kind of long discussion belongs. On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Colin Adams <colinpaulad...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On 18 April 2011 16:54, Ertugrul Soeylemez <e...@ertes.de> wrote: >> >> > >> > Well, *someone* has to worry about robustness and scalability. Users >> > notice when their two minute system builds start taking four minutes >> > (and will be at my door wanting me to fix it) because something didn't >> > scale fast enough, or have to be run more than once because a failing >> > component build wasn't restarted properly. I'm willing to believe that >> > haskell lets you write more scalable code than C, but C's tools for >> > handling concurrency suck, so that should be true in any language >> > where someone actually thought about dealing with concurrency beyond >> > locks and protected methods. The problem is, the only language I've >> > found where that's true that *also* has reasonable tools to deal with >> > scaling beyond a single system is Eiffel (which apparently abstracts >> > things even further than haskell - details like how concurrency is >> > achieved or how many concurrent operations you can have are configured >> > when you start an application, *not* when writing it). Unfortunately, >> > Eiffel has other problems that make it undesirable. >> >> I can't make a comparison, because I don't know Eiffel. > > I do, and I don't recognize what the OP is referring to - I suspect he meant > Erlang. > > -- > Colin Adams > Preston, Lancashire, ENGLAND > () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail > /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell mailing list > Haskell@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
