Re: Distributed objects vs. generic functions and multi-methods

• To: Hugh Greene <q@tardis.ed.ac.maps.uk>
• Subject: Re: Distributed objects vs. generic functions and multi-methods
• From: Kaelin Colclasure <kaelin@acm.org>
• Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:53:54 -0700
• CC: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• References: <B7F3342E.CBB%robmyers@mac.com> <009801c15706$b21fbfd0$7ad09318@D3SKYS01> <Pine.GS4.4.33.0110172236230.22420-100000@omega.tardis.ed.ac.uk>
• Sender: owner-info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010725

Hugh Greene wrote

>Kaelin Colclasure earlier mentioned the problem of incremental updates to
>code on different nodes.  Dunno if it's of any interest but a friend of
>mine did his PhD on a so-called "Dynamic ML" which addresses run-time
>dynamic updates to ML modules on other machines (with ML's usual formal
>correctness guarantees).  Not actually implemented yet, AFAIK, but it has
>a chapter on how the formal side might be applied to Java.  See
><http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/cdw/>, though I couldn't find the thesis
>online.
>
>Just my (friend's) 2p :-)
>
Ah, interesting. I'll have a look sometime.

Also, anyone seriously interested in distributed systems owes themselves 
a look at Erlang -- a functional language specifically tailored to the 
domain. There is even an open source implementation to play with.

<http://www.erlang.org/>

-- Kaelin

• Re: Distributed objects vs. generic functions and multi-methods
• From: Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com>
• Re: Distributed objects vs. generic functions and multi-methods
• From: "Scott McKay" <swm@mediaone.net>
• Re: Distributed objects vs. generic functions and multi-methods
• From: Hugh Greene <q@tardis.ed.ac.maps.uk>

• Prev: Re: FunDev -> OCX?
• Next: Re: Distributed objects vs. generic functions and multi-methods
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread