What's all this fuss about Erlang? (2007)

Re:What's all this fuss about Erlang? (2007) by m00x on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @07:42PM (#13477329)

And then you also need to implement mailboxes to receive new data, supervisors to watch the threads and revive them when they fail, initialization methods to get back to the original state, etc.

You can trivialize any issue if you ignore all the facts, but it doesn't make your argument have any correctness.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What's all this fuss about Erlang? (2007) by BeetleB on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @01:06AM (#13479056)

I'm really surprised at the arguing in this thread.

Embarrassingly parallel algorithms are trivial in pretty much every language. That is why is embarrassing.

>And then you also need to implement mailboxes to receive new data

If you did, it is not embarrassingly parallel.

You know, a huge amount of parallel work is done in C/C++. It was the language used for multiple parallel algorithms courses in my university. Being able to do basic MPI type stuff in C does not make you a top programmer. And not being able to do an embarrassingly parallel algorithm in C would ring alarm bells.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What's all this fuss about Erlang? (2007) by ww520 on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @09:42AM (#13481677)

People's obsession with language choice often cloud their judgement.

[ Parent | on HN ]