> And Go also has integers, a significant feature of C... So does every other language. Perhaps I need to be more explicit for you: Go does have green threads

> And Go also has integers, a significant feature of C... So does every other language. Perhaps I need to be more explicit for you: Go does have green threads with M:N scheduling, which is a powerful feature of Erlang that most other languages do not have. > Basically, the one and only commonality is that they're mapped M:N on OS threads, which is on par with comparing a wheelie bin and a CAT 797F on grounds that they both have 4 wheels. I'm more convinced by Armstrong's argument [1] (and my own experience). Green threads enable a concurrent style of programming that is not viable in most other programming languages. (See also: Concurrent ML and Concurrent Haskell, although the former is not parallel.) > Goroutine's semantics and implementation are nothing like Erlang's processes: the latter are shared-nothing, preempted, monitorable and messageable whereas goroutines are shared-memory cooperative black holes. I have drawn on an important similarity between goroutines and Erlang processes. I did not dispute their differences, although I think your comparison is overly simplistic. Also, you ignored my rebuttal to your claim that Go's "basically only use case is network servers." Any particular reason why? [1] - http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ffg2003/papers/ffg2003-armstrong.pdf http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ffg2003/papers/ffg2003-ar...