From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" Date: 2007-04-19T12:51:54+09:00 Subject: Re: Could Ruby be a good Erlang-like? Eleanor McHugh wrote: > On 18 Apr 2007, at 14:01, Jason Roelofs wrote: >> I have yet to actually mess with Erlang (I definitely plan to), but >> doing >> what you're asking seems like an almost monumental waste of time. The >> reason >> Erlang works the way it does is because it was built from the ground >> up to >> support massively parallel processing. Ruby was built from the ground >> up as >> your normal single-threaded (with support for green-threads) dynamic >> programming language. >> >> So it seems that what you're asking is to rewrite Erlang to work with >> Ruby >> syntax; this is not something that can be patched into the Ruby VM. > > I'm not sure that Erlang is the right place to be looking for good > Ruby concurrency models, given the fundamental differences between the > two languages. What I think would be interesting though is if some of > the CSP and Pi-Calculus inspired stuff that's being worked on by the > KRoC team (http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/projects/ofa/kroc/) make it into > the Ruby world. Uh ... I'll go check it out, but don't get me started on Pi-Calculus vs. Petri Nets in the Business Process Modeling arena. :) Suffice it to say I've been studying Petri nets for something like 20 years now and I find Pi-Calculus and CSP (and related process algebra notations) dang near impossible to read as a result. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) http://borasky-research.net/ If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.