News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Joe Armstrong: Solving the wrong problem. Parent comment

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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]