Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You're probably thinking about it the wrong way then. It turns out that even in cases where you don't have some massively distributed, scalable needs, there are a lot of cases to use Erlang. While it makes insanely difficult problems tractable, it can also make moderately challenging problems simple (and it sometimes can make simple tasks irritating; see usual list of Erlang complaints).

Just about any sort of web backend (that isn't having to do a whole lot of number crunching), any sort of interaction with hardware, handling/transport of binary data (as mentioned above), and of course any time you need reliability, it's worth considering.

But even in areas where there's not an obvious win, a lot of problems that are traditionally done in a single threaded manner can be made simpler in a concurrent language like Erlang.

An example I like to give is time based task scheduling. In a traditional language, you'd implement something like that with a priority queue. Which is fine, but you have a lot of work. First, what happens if timings change? You have to rejigger -everything-. What happens if you have multiple tasks at the same time? You need a threadpool or similar to dispatch these things onto. What happens if one task itself creates a new task for a later time? You'll have multiple people adding things onto the priority queue, so now you need to start locking. And of course, since you've got your dispatching process sleeping until the next task is to start, you have to make sure any time you modify the queue, you remember to notify that sleeping task, so it can update as necessary. There is a lot to get wrong.

In Erlang? You spin up a separate process for each task, with a timer. Done (with caveats; you likely will need to persist the task information and load it periodically into a task+timer process, but that's pretty trivial).

A similar case can be made for functional compared to a more procedural approach. That's a little too long winded for here, but even examples that seem -ideal- for OO, can oftentimes be described more simply in a functional, data-centric manner, and future refactorings are made simpler as well in doing so.

You're both right.

Absolutely, Erlang can serve well as a general-purpose language.

But there's no denying that it was designed to solve very costly, very difficult problems, and that remains its strength.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact