From: thelifter
Subject: Some questions regarding "Ode to Erlang"
Date: 
Message-ID: <1116474336.580986.206540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Hello,

I read that nice thread about Erlang. Well, congratulations, you found
a good tool for the job. Some questions:

-Erlang does have a distributed database, but does it also have a
distributed filesystem? Any ideas how this could be accomplished with
Erlang or Lisp? Of course you could always use the database as your
filesystem but I think for some applications this would not be ideal.
Once you have your distributed filesystem you could even build your own
Google-like search engine. Just connect 100K computers together :)

-About writing a Lisp/Scheme with the capabilities of Erlang: Maybe it
would be easier the other way round. Just change the syntax of Erlang
to lisp syntax.

Thanks for any feedback or comments.

Thelifter
From: Christian Lynbech
Subject: Re: Some questions regarding "Ode to Erlang"
Date: 
Message-ID: <87wtptb2ob.fsf@chateau.defun.dk>
>>>>> "thelifter" == thelifter  <·········@gmx.net> writes:

thelifter> -Erlang does have a distributed database, but does it also
thelifter> have a distributed filesystem?

No, Erlang only have access function for whatever filesystems you are
running on, unlike the Mnesia database which is an native Erlang
application.

thelifter> Any ideas how this could be accomplished with Erlang or
thelifter> Lisp?

The main problem is probably in coming up with a distrbution model
rather than deciding what language to write it in.

thelifter> -About writing a Lisp/Scheme with the capabilities of
thelifter> Erlang: Maybe it would be easier the other way round. Just
thelifter> change the syntax of Erlang to lisp syntax.

Well, there is a lot more to at least Common Lisp than Erlang has to
offer, including:

        - more types (eg in Erlang a string is just a list of characters)

        - real structs (Erlang structs is just tuples and struct
          creation and access is by complier magic, not available in
          the REPL)

        - packages (Erlang is rather strict about one module = one file and
          you cannot set the current module in any way)

        - object system (Erlang has no such thing, you obviously can
          roll your own but it is not going to make you happy)

        - macros (Erlang has a macro facility but it appears closer to
          C macros in power than to Lisp macros)

I for one would not use Erlang more, just because it acquired a nicer
syntax.


------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech       | christian ··@ defun #\. dk
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
                                        - ·······@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)