Received: by 10.204.133.213 with SMTP id g21mr902922bkt.3.1328976218138;
        Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:03:38 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: erlang-programming@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.200.144 with SMTP id ew16ls10252378bkb.2.gmail; Sat, 11
 Feb 2012 08:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.129.137 with SMTP id hi9mr900526bkc.8.1328976217589;
        Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.129.137 with SMTP id hi9mr900525bkc.8.1328976217573;
        Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org>
Received: from hades.cslab.ericsson.net (hades.cslab.ericsson.net. [192.121.151.104])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id ba12si14094920bkb.2.2012.02.11.08.03.37;
        Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org designates 192.121.151.104 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.121.151.104;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org designates 192.121.151.104 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org; dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header...@gmail.com
Received: from hades.cslab.ericsson.net (hades [192.121.151.104])
	by hades.cslab.ericsson.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41BB5C11C;
	Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:03:30 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: erlang-questi...@erlang.org
Delivered-To: erlang-questi...@erlang.org
Received: from mail-ey0-f181.google.com (mail-ey0-f181.google.com
 [209.85.215.181])
 by hades.cslab.ericsson.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77325C005
 for <erlang-questi...@erlang.org>; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:03:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: by eaak14 with SMTP id k14so1191522eaa.40
 for <erlang-questi...@erlang.org>; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:03:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
 h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
 :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=lxwoyAVVQ7hNN1TFzBgs2jDMkXXZdoqIa2LoMC8Cg9k=;
 b=NArLCu8xaFIKi3l7ph5BKj9fLwflVfLYs7xd31ByL6jqxSJNLVWRYa1ewolMN7nixH
 CWSXKnrEsaLAf4xB4+DRf1u/7MXAChzmOP8i+xEUZS3NKvvAKoNJexgZgA6W8uOEHRqd
 532p6g9HIihAxW4Aow+Ub1FvVkCca8AyIOJ1Y=
Received: by 10.14.22.65 with SMTP id s41mr3262892ees.50.1328976208343;
 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:03:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (epa230.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl. [83.20.42.230])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z47sm36829805eeh.9.2012.02.11.08.03.26
 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F369145.5080...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:03:17 +0100
From: Radek <poprostura...@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: erlang-questi...@erlang.org
References: <4F36442D.1060...@gmail.com> <4F367010.5020...@meetinghouse.net>
 <4F367483.5000...@gmail.com> <4F367EE8.7020...@meetinghouse.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F367EE8.7020...@meetinghouse.net>
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] The future of Erlang and BEAM
X-BeenThere: erlang-questi...@erlang.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Erlang/OTP discussions <erlang-questions.erlang.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://erlang.org/mailman/options/erlang-questions>,
 <mailto:erlang-questions-requ...@erlang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:erlang-questi...@erlang.org>
List-Help: <mailto:erlang-questions-requ...@erlang.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>,
 <mailto:erlang-questions-requ...@erlang.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org
Sender: erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org

Well, I think it depends. It's true that using default concurrency 
libraries is quite difficult and error prone but as I said before, thare 
are others which mimics Erlang approach (and do it well, just looking at 
numbers).

But, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to run anything massively 
concurrent on JVM; that's one of reasons I've started this topic.

Greetings,
Radek

W dniu 2012-02-11 15:44, Miles Fidelman pisze:
> Radek wrote:
>> Hi Miles,
>>
>> Well, although I didn't mean to write a new language (I meant writing 
>> Erlang-for-JVM, but rather as a DSL), I agree that Erlang IS very 
>> mature and stable. And of course, it started as a industry-level 
>> language, so it's designed to operate as such.
>> I was just wondering if and maybe we could benefit from being hosted 
>> on JVM which is, although not THAT industrial-level, also capable of 
>> being used in such conditions and is most popular VM on the world (so 
>> far). The obvious advantage of using Erlang in such conditions would 
>> be (apart from above) just not using verbose Java, which is big plus 
>> on it's own :) (in my opinion).
>>
>> So, if we could have both of the worlds, i.e. industry-level of OTP 
>> and JVM ubiquity, that would be something huge I think.
>>
>
> But why would I want to run massively concurrent software on a JVM?  
> What makes Erlang different are its underpinnings.  Massive 
> concurrency on top of a JVM is just broken.
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
erlang-questi...@erlang.org
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions