Comments on: Thinking in Language, But Not Clearly

By: The Scala vs Erlang whirlwind at Ted Leung on the Air

The Scala vs Erlang whirlwind at Ted Leung on the Air — Fri, 23 May 2008 06:52:07 +0000

[...] Vinoski (1, 2, 3) – Steve’s articles are more about the reliability aspects of Erlang, and he’s [...]

By: Barry Kelly

Barry Kelly — Sun, 18 May 2008 21:21:40 +0000

I'm on your side of this debate, Steve. I think Ted is missing an appreciation of the gestalt of Erlang, and doesn't quite appreciate some of the more fundamental differences between the process model of Erlang versus the threads of the JVM. I've expanded a bit more on my own blog.

By: Steve Nicolai

Steve Nicolai — Sat, 17 May 2008 02:11:57 +0000

I’d love to see someone that knows QNX well compare it’s process model (which I believe supports multiple computers) and the Erlang process model.

By: Weekly software development and architecture crumbs #4 - Service Endpoint

Weekly software development and architecture crumbs #4 - Service Endpoint — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:13:02 +0000

[...] Steve Vinoski The language debate continues [...]

By: steve

steve — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:43:07 +0000

Bruce: I don’t disagree, and I don’t think anyone from the Erlang community would disagree either. For example, when I spent time with him in London a few months ago, Joe Armstrong spoke often about the other languages that influenced Erlang.

You ask whether we can learn from what we see and make things easier and more reliable, and I agree that’s a worthwhile question. What isn’t worthwhile, though, is the activity that Patrick Logan and I both objected to in our blogs: the hand-waving claims of “Oh, my language could easily do what Erlang does.” They’re always made by people who have never actually used Erlang, they’re wildly incorrect, and I believe they can actually inhibit or even prevent the kind of learning you mentioned in your comment above.