Erlang a primitive language? (was Re: Multy-core CPUs)
frank.shearar at angband.za.org
Thu Oct 25 11:43:46 UTC 2007
"Matej Kosik" <kosik at fiit.stuba.sk> wrote:
> gruntfuttuck wrote:
> > How is squeak going to handle multy-core CPUs, if at all? If we see
> > 100 plus in the future and squeak stay as it is, I would imagine other
> > languages such as erlang, will look more attractive.
> Anyone followed links that Andreas gave?
> There is a dissertation that addresses two fundamental problems:
> - - it introduces synchronization mechanisms that are meant to escape
> from the situation where you
> - either have interference
> - or non-deterministic deadlock
> (Erlang does not solve these problems.
> The recent book about Erlang does not even mention the word "deadlock")
> - - *security*
> It is a point-of-view-changing reading.
> It is true that it is far less mature for production quality, but taking
ideas from something as
> primitive as Erlang ... well, good luck.
Why exactly is Erlang primitive? What do you mean? Do you mean that it can't
solve real-world problems?
It's proven itself in at the very least its original target market, that of
the highly concurrent environment found in things like telephony switches.
It certainly seems applicable in other highly concurrent environments. We're
not talking about some new thought experiment - this is a language that was
released in its open source form in 1998, and whose initial development
started in 1986. There are case studies of _successful_ large systems
(Ericsson's AXD301, in particular).
More information about the Squeak-dev