4 ms·
And that's why he's being downvoted... Generically claiming that a language is "slow af" will mean different things to different people. Hence the interpretatio
by rlander 8y ago
And that's why he's being downvoted... Generically claiming that a language is "slow af" will mean different things to different people. Hence the interpretations. Hence the downvotes.
- Mikeb85 8y agoThe parent of the post I replied to was about Haskell, Ada, Pony and Go. And the thread is about Crystal (with lots of mentions for Nim). All of those share one thing in common, something which Erlang doesn't have in common with them.
- ZephyrP 8y agoErlang absolutely does have this 'in common', and it makes this faculty known every time you start up the Erlang REPL. In fact, I think there's a case to be made that it may have the most refined implementation for scheduling M:N processes (along with more advanced thread affinity, alternative RQ dispatching, SMP awareness, etc).
- Mikeb85 8y agoWas referring to the fact they're all languages which compile to native executables.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rlander 8y agoWell you’re either confused or being purposefully ingenuous. The original poster, samuell, said nothing about languages which compile to native executables, he said he’s looking for “languages with light-weight threads automatically mapped (multiplexed) to physical threads, like in Go”. Hence the suggestion of Erlang, which is valid. Further, making a generic statement that Erlang is “slow af” adds nothing to the discussion.