Re: gEDA-user: C++ (was Re: interesting links)

[Randall Nortman <geda-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user