3 ms·

There is such a language, and it is Erlang.

jb3689 7y ago
Literally this. Reading the article I kept thinking to myself "which is why Erlang/Elixir is great because it doesn't make you choose up front". It's wild that with how popular Elixir has gotten that it still isn't seen as a serious contender for many companies
rubyn00bie 7y ago
I write Elixir professionally, Erlang/Elixir and BEAM is no one-stop solution to these problems either. It has tools to help you, but you can very easily end up in the same boat.
tartrate 7y ago
I have never tried Erlang, but I have read that it doesn't have static type checking. How does it guarantee that different services are following protocols?
- TomMarius 7y ago
  This is the relevant chapter in the manual: https://erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/typespec.html https://erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/typespec.html
- IggleSniggle 7y ago
  Erlang is dynamically typed in part, I believe, to allow hot-swapping code in a running system. It relies on pattern matching to ensure code contracts / ie your types are more like guarantees that a pattern holds true, even if some of the specifics of that protocol have changed. Thus, with zero downtime, you can make updates to the system, while still knowing that your assertions about received data matching your protocol remains true. Any adapters can act like both type update and schema migration simultaneously, as in the case where you wish to support multiple versions of an API simultaneously. The runtime system has built-in support for concurrency, distribution and fault tolerance. Because of the design goals for Erlang and it's runtime, you get services that can all run on one system or be distributed across a network, but the code that you actually write is relatively simple; the entire distributed system acts as a fault-tolerant VM that has functional guarantees. If your startup node fails, then other nodes are elected. If a node crashes while in the middle of a method, another node will execute the method instead. The runtime itself has some analogies to functional coding styles. It runs on a register machine rather than a stack machine. The call and return sequence is replaced by direct jumps to the implementation of the next instruction.

Literally this. Reading the article I kept thinking to myself "which is why Erlang/Elixir is great because it doesn't make you choose up front". It's wild that with how popular Elixir has gotten that it still isn't seen as a serious contender for many companies

rubyn00bie 7y ago

I write Elixir professionally, Erlang/Elixir and BEAM is no one-stop solution to these problems either. It has tools to help you, but you can very easily end up in the same boat.

tartrate 7y ago

I have never tried Erlang, but I have read that it doesn't have static type checking. How does it guarantee that different services are following protocols?

TomMarius 7y ago
This is the relevant chapter in the manual: https://erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/typespec.html https://erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/typespec.html
IggleSniggle 7y ago
Erlang is dynamically typed in part, I believe, to allow hot-swapping code in a running system. It relies on pattern matching to ensure code contracts / ie your types are more like guarantees that a pattern holds true, even if some of the specifics of that protocol have changed. Thus, with zero downtime, you can make updates to the system, while still knowing that your assertions about received data matching your protocol remains true. Any adapters can act like both type update and schema migration simultaneously, as in the case where you wish to support multiple versions of an API simultaneously. The runtime system has built-in support for concurrency, distribution and fault tolerance. Because of the design goals for Erlang and it's runtime, you get services that can all run on one system or be distributed across a network, but the code that you actually write is relatively simple; the entire distributed system acts as a fault-tolerant VM that has functional guarantees. If your startup node fails, then other nodes are elected. If a node crashes while in the middle of a method, another node will execute the method instead. The runtime itself has some analogies to functional coding styles. It runs on a register machine rather than a stack machine. The call and return sequence is replaced by direct jumps to the implementation of the next instruction.