Re:Joe Armstrong: Solving the wrong problem
by klibertp on Wednesday March 27, 2013 @03:37PM
(#5451528)
No, it just makes lock-free and parallel programming much easier.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Joe Armstrong: Solving the wrong problem
by eridius on Wednesday March 27, 2013 @03:49PM
(#5451575)
I can see it making concurrency easier, but lock-free-ness is an attribute of the data structure and the algorithms that interact with it, regardless of how easy it is to write concurrent code.
Re:Joe Armstrong: Solving the wrong problem
by transitorykris on Wednesday March 27, 2013 @04:20PM
(#5451759)
Lock-free-ness is a consequence of data being immutable in Erlang
Re:Joe Armstrong: Solving the wrong problem
by eridius on Wednesday March 27, 2013 @04:34PM
(#5451849)
You can avoid mutating data in C if you want to. People just don't, because mutation is so convenient and fast.
Re:Joe Armstrong: Solving the wrong problem
by stelonix on Wednesday March 27, 2013 @06:35PM
(#5452425)
Yes, but standard C has no way to tell the compiler a variable is immutable (immutability != constness), so unless you go non-standard (and very verbose at it) Erlang is still a better tool for the job.