X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Virus-Scanned:	amavisd-new at neurotica.com
X-NSA-prism-xkeyscore:	I do not consent to surveillance, prick
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=neurotica.com;
	s=default; t=1436301176;
	bh=dgbccLcF+sr6/747H+yMVOLaYdqiwE6xu2LIdS7RZBw=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=GDzD3dstlFKyjsyOj8e14TzVBn3DySSZzhfq3fx8WSs0dlWsts8BGbdrsNa83v6+W
	1SFvIqian91lqNeQC1WdTpOz0dGrsS5t2a+1XLLDTTrtZ5+lfo6uiOq7YZMssfg4sN
	c8Io0onnnNNArI4frPbrO3I1OecpGh661laAQB9o=
Message-ID:	<559C3778.4000105@neurotica.com>
Date:	Tue, 07 Jul 2015 16:32:56 -0400
From:	"Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
References:	<1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <CAFC5WMoa2-z6bNca_bQN+jmMR260UBmoJQybUzH=L2TrBpzNNA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1436006726 DOT 677 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150706200609 DOT GD24178 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAC4O8c9f0pLsLu_dyuO5ggh7RmHY1vAA=UUhk9AE0JYZb4mhBQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAM2RGhQfPO31-1Uyc3kC7w286r0VD7c41UZEZcyYquzknCxbsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150707060409 DOT GB14357 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAOP4iL2C_LU=RQy5FWYF-7RrHW6tqhqqyFJGjkwLQ2AD7FiYJA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1436287952 DOT 678 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C0F7E DOT 7010009 AT neurotica DOT com> <1436295556 DOT 678 DOT 91 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <CAOuGh89C71vTW00QLQgVBAQy=m6Me8khjqep=eFH7KgKGqaSzw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<CAOuGh89C71vTW00QLQgVBAQy=m6Me8khjqep=eFH7KgKGqaSzw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 07/07/2015 03:50 PM, Bob Paddock (graceindustries AT gmail DOT com) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> "Parallel processing,
> concurrency, threading is an very important point in these days"
> 
> To add other obscure languages to this thread (I have heard of all of
> them except Crystal, need to look that one up).
> 
> Erlang, that does parallel processing without threads.
> Erlang's designer saw threads as evil and went with message passing.
> Read Joe Armstrong's thesis.
> Never heard of Erlang?  It runs a large part of the worlds phone network.

  Erlang looks fantastic, until you get to that
nonintuitive-to-thepoint-of-incomprehensibility syntax!

> Functional Languages are the long term future rather than procedural
> languages for maintainability and keeping out bugs.

  For the most part I'd have to agree...but they're always going to be
slow, because functional language code (much like object-oriented code)
generally doesn't map all that well to the way processors actually
*work*. (unless you're running an iAPX-432, which I'm assuming you
aren't! ;))

  Of course one could make "the Lisp argument": "Now that processors are
faster, the performance problems people complained about years ago are
irrelevant!" ;)

                 -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

- Raw text -