3 ms·

In some way this article by one of Erlang creators is related to your comment: https://armstrongonsoftware.blogspot.com.ar/2008/05/road-we-didnt-go-down.html ht

In some way this article by one of Erlang creators is related to your comment: https://armstrongonsoftware.blogspot.com.ar/2008/05/road-we-didnt-go-down.html https://armstrongonsoftware.blogspot.com.ar/2008/05/road-we-... > The fundamental problem with taking a remote operation and wrapping it up so that it looks like a local operation is that the failure modes of local and remote operations are completely different.

qznc 10y ago
Armstrong clearly sees the problem. I understand his solution as: Erlang makes local and remote actors indistinguishable, but you should build your own custom wrapper for remote calls. This seems fishy to me. You build low-level boilerplate over a high-level foundation? To clarify, I consider implementing the timeout as "low-level" and a mechanism like "link(remote_process)" as "high-level".
- pyotrgalois 10y ago
  Could you please explain why do you think a timeout would be low level?
derefr 10y ago
I think of Erlang less as making remote operations masquerade as local ones, and more as forcing you to assume that all local code has the potential failure-modes of remote code. Which, often (for weird and roundabout reasons) it does.
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  Very insightful!
- im_down_w_otp 10y ago
  This.