3 ms·
As long as you have the "over ZeroMQ" part, it's not Erlang style :). The author tries to explain exactly that. In Erlang the "over X" part is omitted. In Erlan
by loxs 14y ago
As long as you have the "over ZeroMQ" part, it's not Erlang style :). The author tries to explain exactly that. In Erlang the "over X" part is omitted. In Erlang the "over" entity is a processing unit of its own. In abstract terms, in Erlang you don't talk "over" something. You talk "to" things. And even better - you spawn things (processes representing requests) to talk to other things, wait for a response, process that response and even make decisions of their own. And that's exactly the point that the author is making. He is not telling what is possible or what is not. He explains the mindset difference between Erlang programmers and such used to the concepts of "socket", "message queue" or whatever one calls them.
- philwelch 14y agoI think the assertion is that you can build the same type of abstraction over ZeroMQ that the Erlang runtime provides, at which point the "over ZeroMQ" part is just an implementation detail.
- loxs 14y agoThat is correct. But then, after you implement the system in question, you might not want to call that ZeroMQ any more. In the same way that we don't mention ssh when we talk about our Erlang clusters. And I think, you will lose quite a lot by cutting out all the goodies that ZeroMQ provides. You might not want to do that.