Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: RfD: new double syntax Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 13:15:40 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 13 Message-ID: <87a8gr3rbn.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> References: <2016Jul1.191836@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2016Jul2.193202@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <413be3bf-8e44-4c7f-be83-84b6d90df21a@googlegroups.com> <242dnSgH_PDmd-HKnZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@supernews.com> <137c0d40-1d37-4e78-94e2-86f70ea975b1@googlegroups.com> <87eg643vfe.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="590ea01354cf4bcbcd857d7ebbd88128"; logging-data="23382"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HJMmx36IVZLZCq2hHwP0S" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:sqJ+Bvni2JS1N0wkKj0CtAlY3C8= sha1:CQc8rWdQmm5xVGob7J1eFzyWZ4w= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:49803 franck.bensusan@gmail.com writes: > But I find Erlang principles quite conservative as they copy each object > they pass to another task. Even if I understand the benefits, I can't > resign myself to this... I think I saw some benchmarks showing the copying cost was not that much. There are some optimizations like sharing of large binaries (what other languages would call strings), and ETS tables are somehow shared behind the scenes in ways that are invisible to the client processes. The benefit is that each process has its own GC, so the individual heaps are small and some processes can run while others GC, minimizing latency. Erlang is supposed to be a soft real-time system so they are willing to take some amortized overhead in order to minimize latency.