3 ms·
That's true. Haha! There's another option and that's setting up an Erlang node in the other language. The Erlang term format is relatively straightforward. But
by bmitc 2y ago
That's true. Haha!
There's another option and that's setting up an Erlang node in the other language. The Erlang term format is relatively straightforward. But I'm honestly not sure of the benefit of a node versus just using a port.
- throwawaymaths 2y agoNode: - can "easily" send beam terms back and forth - if you want it to be os-supervised separately (systemd, kubernetes, e.g.) - pain in the ass Port: - easy - usually the only choice if you're not the software author - really only communicates via stdio bytestreams - risk of zombies if... Iirc the stdout is not closed properly? - kind of crazy how it works, Erlang VM spawns a separate process as a middleman
- jerf 2y agoThe Erlang term format is straightforward, but if you want to set up another node in another language you need to correctly implement/emulate process linking, binaries, and some other stuff too, it's not just a matter of writing a socket to accept and emit Erlang terms. It's not impossibly large but it's not something one does on a lark either; if there isn't support in your language already it's hard to justify this over any of the many, many message busses supported by both Erlang and other languages that don't have so many requirements.