Processes+messages VS Functional APIs - are they different?

[josevalim]

@Fl4m3Ph03n1x

Of course processes are not good enough, not alone. You also need well defined Protocols to go along. But the main point here is that an architecture based in Processes and Protocols is the preferred way to go with erlang.

I think the assumption that processes+protocols are preferred in Erlang is flawed. If processes and protocols were the way to go in Erlang, we wouldn’t have a gen_server (which is a functional API) as the default way to build processes in Erlang/OTP and used by the majority of the Erlang community.

I believe Joe would like to move more towards processes and protocols and I personally would like to see it explored but we do need some additions in order to make it more productive (and Joe explores some of them in his thesis).

@Fl4m3Ph03n1x

So I really don’t understand all the friction with Dave’s idea - it seems rather natural if you come from erlang, right? Or perhaps I am missing an important detail from the discussion?

Dave’s approach is functional. A lot of the discussion was when your functional API should be backed by processes or not.

I think both communities would generally agree to not create processes when they’re not necessary. Dave even says so in the readme of his component library:

If you don’t share your state with anybody then good news, you don’t need processes and you don’t need this library (for now). You will live a happier life than the rest of us.

Similarly, Joe is not arguing to use processes for everything. He is arguing to not hide our processes behind GenServer, components, etc. Perhaps they both want to achieve the same goal, which is to streamline the development experience related to processes, but they are approaching the problem in two different ways.

PS: I renamed the title because this is not a discussion about Erlangers vs Elixirists.