4 ms·

What I would like addressed by someone from Erlang is the reality of Celluloid in Ruby, and do honest comparisons. http://celluloid.io http://celluloid.io Oth

What I would like addressed by someone from Erlang is the reality of Celluloid in Ruby, and do honest comparisons. http://celluloid.io http://celluloid.io Otherwise, the speaker seems like a good representative, but the presentation is so verbose it makes me want to concurrently handle his thesis asynchronously in parallel threads and remove the human... in jRuby, using Celluloid.

lelf 12y ago
It's different game. Nothing is shared (think: one gc per thread), can run 10M+ threads on one cpu and effectively schedule all of them (it has one-of-a-kind scheduler counting reductions, you cannot cpu lock even if you want), really transparent distributive programming, state of the art introspection: "login" to remote process on different node, see how many messages in the mailbox of some process, hot (= replace running code) code reloading etc. Edit: Essentially: some actor library for language X is not even remotely (if any) erlang. Maybe cloud haskell some day will be there, but its all introspection parts is basically nonexistent right now.
rubiquity 12y ago
I'm a long time Rubyist that is new to the Erlang world by way of Elixir mostly. I did use Celluloid in Ruby and it is actually what eventually lead me to Erlang/Elixir. I think Celluloid is neat and a great set of abstractions for multi threading in Ruby. However, there's more to actors than just having it implemented in a library. Erlang's VM was designed for the actor model whereas Ruby MRI is not. Celluloid actors run in OS threads which can't scale to hundreds of thousands where as Erlang processes can. Using Celluloid with JRuby is closer but still not quite the same. All that said, Celluloid is damn cool and Tony Arcieri did incredible work on it.
Allan_Smithee 12y ago
Everybody thinks that the identifying characteristic of Erlang is the "Actor"(-like) model. This is untrue. This is also why all the "Actor"(-like) libraries grafted on to other programming languages that proudly proclaim themselves "Erlang-like" are wrong and make me laugh out loud when I run across them.

lelf 12y ago

It's different game. Nothing is shared (think: one gc per thread), can run 10M+ threads on one cpu and effectively schedule all of them (it has one-of-a-kind scheduler counting reductions, you cannot cpu lock even if you want), really transparent distributive programming, state of the art introspection: "login" to remote process on different node, see how many messages in the mailbox of some process, hot (= replace running code) code reloading etc. Edit: Essentially: some actor library for language X is not even remotely (if any) erlang. Maybe cloud haskell some day will be there, but its all introspection parts is basically nonexistent right now.

rubiquity 12y ago

I'm a long time Rubyist that is new to the Erlang world by way of Elixir mostly. I did use Celluloid in Ruby and it is actually what eventually lead me to Erlang/Elixir. I think Celluloid is neat and a great set of abstractions for multi threading in Ruby. However, there's more to actors than just having it implemented in a library. Erlang's VM was designed for the actor model whereas Ruby MRI is not. Celluloid actors run in OS threads which can't scale to hundreds of thousands where as Erlang processes can. Using Celluloid with JRuby is closer but still not quite the same. All that said, Celluloid is damn cool and Tony Arcieri did incredible work on it.

Allan_Smithee 12y ago

Everybody thinks that the identifying characteristic of Erlang is the "Actor"(-like) model. This is untrue. This is also why all the "Actor"(-like) libraries grafted on to other programming languages that proudly proclaim themselves "Erlang-like" are wrong and make me laugh out loud when I run across them.