> In other words langauge that claim "Erlang-like concurrency" never get is right. They put a queue and a thread together in a class and call it "Erlang". But t

> In other words langauge that claim "Erlang-like concurrency" never get is right. They put a queue and a thread together in a class and call it "Erlang". But that is not Erlang. The closest thing to Erlang's model is probablh the operating system with its processes. That's not really right. > It even makes sense to think of your code in that way -- your langauge platform is an OS for your code. If you write in Erlang or Elixir you are writting on a modern sane OS like Linux, Windows, OS X. If you are running with pthreads or goroutines, you are back to Windows 3.1. That's not true at all. I have no idea why you'd try and use such an emotionally loaded argument. Just earlier in your post you made a point that different tools have different sweet spots. The Actor model is useful for some things, but not all. There are many effective techniques for parallel computation that do not rely on the actor model. There are several ways to model distributed computation that are not the actor model. My principle objection to this entire thread is that people are making a mistake ignoring these other techniques and in fact directly misrepresenting the state of the art for the sake of their rhetoric about Erlang. By and large, the Erlang community itself tries not to do this!