News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What's all this fuss about Erlang? (2007). Parent comment

Re:What's all this fuss about Erlang? (2007) by BeetleB on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @01:01AM (#13479028)
>If one piece of the system would take a long time to finish, it doesn't interfere with the other parts of the system completing their work on schedule. That one blocking piece will finish more slowly, but ever other moving part in the system will keep responding as expected.

That's how it works in pretty much any language that supports message passing. I used to do MPI programming in C. Nothing you said is not true for MPI in C. Later I did some MPI in Python. True there as well. If you have MPI in any language, it is true for that language.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What's all this fuss about Erlang? (2007) by brightball on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @06:22AM (#13480515)
My understanding is that those languages rely on cooperative scheduling within a thread, meaning that the running code has to relinquish control to the scheduler. Threads themselves are prescheduled at the OS layer but OS threads are much heavier and limited in how many can be running. A Java thread is 1024kb for example, compared to an Erlang process that's 0.5kb.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What's all this fuss about Erlang? (2007) by BeetleB on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @10:18AM (#13482050)
>My understanding is that those languages rely on cooperative scheduling within a thread

MPI doesn't require threads.

I think people here are confusing parallel programming with multithreaded programming. One is a subset of the other.

[ Parent | on HN ]