On 10/25/07, Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org> wrote:
>
>  The "process-based model of concurrency" - as used in Erlang - is but one
> approach in a wide range of techniques that provide solutions for
> concurrency.

A wide range?  I'm aware of variations of only 3 ideas.  Could you
expand on "wide range"?

>It doesn't solve every problem in concurrency - I don't even
> think that they claim that for it. If they do please show us where.

Would you please stop making a statement that I obviously didn't say
(you even quoted me!) and then attacking that statement you made as
though it were mine?  I find that quite disingenuous.

>  Further the example of the one million object graph being processed by
> 10,000 compute nodes processing the problem is that you don't know in
> advance how to slice up the data. If you can know in advance how to slice up
> the data then you've simplified and possibly optimized the problem solving.
> However, that's the problem, slicing up real world data object sets that are
> highly interconnected with each other and processing them in parallel.
> That's an example of a more general case. There are other examples that
> won't compute with the slice em and dice em approach using the process-based
> model of concurrency.

Do you have any real-world cases where it's a problem?  I'm not
interested in solving theoretical problems that never come up in
actual practice.