5 ms·
> It's actually better at pretty much everything because it's functional and not OO. Just a bit of a funny comment/aside, but the actor-based message-passing c
by nilkn 11y ago
> It's actually better at pretty much everything because it's functional and not OO.
Just a bit of a funny comment/aside, but the actor-based message-passing concurrency of Erlang/OTP and Elixir is actually pretty similar to the classic object-oriented programming of Smalltalk, etc.
- pmontra 11y agoIndeed. I quote Joe Armstrong: "I might think, though I'm not quite sure if I believe this or not, but Erlang might be the only object oriented language because the 3 tenets of object oriented programming are that it's based on message passing, that you have isolation between objects and have polymorphism." http://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop http://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop
- andy_ppp 11y agoYes, I hear you. It's strange how OOP got completely bastardised by the industry - anyone know what the process for this was; in my head I'm tempted to blaim C++ and then Java but I think there are probably other culprits that led us away from the path to enlightenment :-)
- jimbokun 11y agoI think the process was just "add object oriented stuff to C". Which, yes, is another way of saying "blame C++ then Java". In general, assuming programmers aren't smart enough to learn a different syntax has always been a winning bet in programming language design.