> If you think about it, what is a database if not mutable shared memory? Eh --- I send the database a message, and it often sends me a message back. From out

> If you think about it, what is a database if not mutable shared memory? Eh --- I send the database a message, and it often sends me a message back. From outside, it's communicating processes. Most databases do mutable shared state inside their box (and if you're running an in-process database, there's not necessarily a clear separation). I don't think shared mutable state is inherently evil; but it's a lot harder to think about than shared-nothing. Of course, even in Erlang, a process's mailbox is shared mutable state; and so is ets. Sometimes, the most effective way forward is shared mutable state. But having to consider the entire scope of shared mutation is exhausting; I find it much easier to write a sequential program with async messaging to interface with the world; it's usually really clear what to do when you get a message, although it moves some complexity towards 'how do other processes know where to send those messages' and similar things. It's always easy to make async send/response feel synchronous, after you send a request, you can wait for the response (best to have a timeout, too); it's very painful to take apart a synchronous api into separate send and receive, so I strongly prefer async messaging as the basic building block.