couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Heycock <...@roughage.com.au>
Subject Re: Erlang vs Scala
Date Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:06:39 GMT
Excerpts from Antony Blakey's message of Thu Apr 09 00:05:39 +1000 2009:
> 
> On 08/04/2009, at 10:00 PM, Richard Heycock wrote:
> 
> > Excerpts from Antony Blakey's message of Wed Apr 08 20:00:51 +1000  
> > 2009:
> >> It's important to distinguish between Java the language, and the JVM.
> >
> > Indeed but as the end user the only they see is the JVM. They don't  
> > see
> > any language features whether they be OO or functional.
> 
> Exactly my point. So the fact that it runs on the JVM is relevant -  
> what language its written in doesn't matter.
> 
> >> Neither Scala nor Clojure suck in the ways that Java does.
> >
> > But that is like saying you must use couchdb because it is written  
> > in a
> > functional language.
> 
> Not at all. I was responding to your anti-Java comments. IMO Scala and  
> Clojure both have interesting solutions to concurrency, as does Erlang  
> (and CSP and ...). Slightly different solutions, to be sure, and the  
> jury is out on what the best approach to concurrency is, particularly  
> given the ancillary pragmatics. The details of the Erlang model have  
> certainly proven useful for some domains - provably so.
> 
> Personally, I do have more faith in large systems written in powerful  
> languages, as opposed to assembler for example. That's for a number of  
> reasons, the most obvious being that error rates seem proportional to  
> the number of source constructs, so you can expect less errors in  
> software written in more powerful/concise languages. Of course  
> programmer skill is an enormous factor, but that's an implicit input.  
> Concision obviously isn't independent of the problem domain for a  
> given language, and so the combination of language + problem is a  
> valid input when considering a solution.
> 
> I think in a constrained sense you can say that functional programs  
> (given the functional languages we have to choose from) are a) likely  
> to have fewer bugs, b) result in more sophisticated solutions, c) use  
> more memory, possibly a lot more; and d) be somewhat slower, at least  
> compared to what one could theoretically achieve in e.g. C, ignoring  
> the other points.
> 
> There is significant consensus that languages such as Erlang, Scala,  
> and Clojure, which are (largely) functional, albeit not ideologically  
> so (unlike Haskell) are better at producing programs that operate  
> correctly in the face of concurrency.
> 
> > The end user doesn't care what it's written in; all
> > they care about is whether it works as advertised.
> 
> But you said:
> 
> > If couchdb had been written in java I wouldn't have gone near it.
> 
> So obviously the language it's written in matters to you.

I don't think I made my point clear. I was referring to the JVM not the
language. Java is such a nightmare when it comes to memory it's just not
worth it. Of course YMMV but in my experience it uses more memory than
any other runtime I've come across, pathological errors withstanding.

rgh

> Antony Blakey

Mime
View raw message