4 ms·
This was never meant to be a complete solution to back pressure in Erlang and has recently been remove for the next major release: https://github.com/erlang/otp
by strmpnk 9y ago
This was never meant to be a complete solution to back pressure in Erlang and has recently been remove for the next major release: https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/2e601a2efc19d64ed0628a5973596e6331ddcc7c#diff-de35f5a632c1decd2fbd06cf7ed2c8dc https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/2e601a2efc19d64ed0628a5...
I’ve heard speculation that it really only helped scheduler efficiency and this didn’t apply all that well on SMP schedulers and has finally been removed since non-SMP builds are no longer supported.
As for Pony, their actor model doesn’t support selectively receiving messages so their queue handling may have some different trades to make there, as well as interaction with primitives like promises (which are used where Erlang would prefer a ref tagged receive clause). Spooneybarger has done work on backpressure in Pony so maybe he or other Wallaroo labs people can elaborate.
- spooneybarger 9y agoMy reply would be that while both Pony and Erlang are actor model languages, the semantics are quite different. I never speak of either being better than the other. Rather, they are different. I'm an expert on backpressure in Pony, not so much in Erlang, so I'll leave it at that.
- strmpnk 9y agoI’m a fan of both approaches. As we can never it say too soon in life: tradeoffs.