Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[Bill Baxter]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Depends on the problem being solved.  Right now however, Erlang backed by
>> D is the best I've found for general purpose server / distributed 
>> programming.
>> That gives me a control language with a good parallel programming 
>> model as
>> well as systems / mutable state language for optimization points, 
>> shared data,
>> and systems programming bits.  So perhaps roughly similar to D2 from a 
>> 1000'
>> viewpoint, but as always, the devil's in the details.
> 
> But, you said you didn't wish to mix functional and imperative 
> programming? I don't understand.

Sean Kelly on Erlang:
http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=72496

"""
I agree that it's important for mutability to be available if
necessary.  But Erlang integrates reasonably well with C,
so I don't consider this an issue really.  In fact, I prefer this
approach to the "all in one" approach that D 2.0 seems to
be aiming for, as I prefer that there be a semantic separation
between my functional and imperative code.  I feel that this
is a good way of preventing "bleed through" of concepts
that would complicate and confuse code.  It also neatly
avoids a motivator for producing monolithic code, and
the consequent risk that the mutable-state portion may
fail and corrupt the entire process.

But this is really a matter of preference.  I'm sure many
people disagree, and others simply don't work on the
type of applications Erlang was designed to target.  I
just happen to be in the niche that Erlang was specifically
intended for.  I only wish I'd heard about it 15 years ago
instead of spending all that time mucking about with C++.
"""

--bb