News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Conc: Better Structured Concurrency for Go. Parent comment

Re:Conc: Better Structured Concurrency for Go by tsegratis on Thursday January 12, 2023 @07:22AM (#34352455)
Nice points

I suppose the core issue is transactions. Erlang could still fail with

  them ! {sub, n}
  crash()
  me ! {add, n}
But typically Erlang's isolated processes means many transactions can fail or rollback in isolation

I suppose instead transactions could be a core language semantic. But hard to do, and erlang actors gives a lot, for very little overhead

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Conc: Better Structured Concurrency for Go by jerf on Thursday January 12, 2023 @10:42AM (#34355150)
Erlang qua Erlang doesn't have any transactions, either, so Erlang qua Erlang can't fail that way.

In general, whatever it was the crashing process was doing can still have failed. This obviously doesn't magically fix database transactions, or make it so files are never half written because it crashed in the meantime, or any other "external" action that you can still have failed to protect properly from crashes. It only means that the runtime can't get stuck due to locks failing to be released.

But hey, that's something!

[ Parent | on HN ]