> On 18 April 2011 16:54, Ertugrul Soeylemez <
es@ertes.de> wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > Well, *someone* has to worry about robustness and scalability. Users
> > > notice when their two minute system builds start taking four minutes
> > > (and will be at my door wanting me to fix it) because something didn't
> > > scale fast enough, or have to be run more than once because a failing
> > > component build wasn't restarted properly. I'm willing to believe that
> > > haskell lets you write more scalable code than C, but C's tools for
> > > handling concurrency suck, so that should be true in any language
> > > where someone actually thought about dealing with concurrency beyond
> > > locks and protected methods. The problem is, the only language I've
> > > found where that's true that *also* has reasonable tools to deal with
> > > scaling beyond a single system is Eiffel (which apparently abstracts
> > > things even further than haskell - details like how concurrency is
> > > achieved or how many concurrent operations you can have are configured
> > > when you start an application, *not* when writing it). Unfortunately,
> > > Eiffel has other problems that make it undesirable.
> >
> > I can't make a comparison, because I don't know Eiffel.
>
> I do, and I don't recognize what the OP is referring to - I suspect he meant
> Erlang.