On 10/25/07, Peter William Lount <peter@smalltalk.org> wrote:The "process-based model of concurrency" - as used in Erlang - is but one approach in a wide range of techniques that provide solutions for concurrency.A wide range? I'm aware of variations of only 3 ideas.
Could you expand on "wide range"?
It doesn't solve every problem in concurrency - I don't even think that they claim that for it. If they do please show us where.Would you please stop making a statement that I obviously didn't say (you even quoted me!) and then attacking that statement you made as though it were mine? I find that quite disingenuous.
Further the example of the one million object graph being processed by 10,000 compute nodes processing the problem is that you don't know in advance how to slice up the data. If you can know in advance how to slice up the data then you've simplified and possibly optimized the problem solving. However, that's the problem, slicing up real world data object sets that are highly interconnected with each other and processing them in parallel. That's an example of a more general case. There are other examples that won't compute with the slice em and dice em approach using the process-based model of concurrency.Do you have any real-world cases where it's a problem? I'm not interested in solving theoretical problems that never come up in actual practice.