[mnd]

Concurrency is not parallelism. You conflate parallelism with concurrency in your comments both here and above. I should also mention that for a big part of its life the Erlang virtual machine has had no support for parallelism. Erlang was not invented to solve parallelism so your hypothesis is downright wrong. Parallelism was just a consequence of the concurrency which was not exploited by the Erlang virtual machine until a much later point. And yes, if you read the paper I have referred to in my previous comment you will happily find out exactly the reasons for why Erlang was invented and what sort of problems it has solved. Also, to clarify, I did not claim that you were wrong about Amdahl’s law; you are however completely wrong in your claim that Erlang has brought nothing new other than supervisors and hot code reloading to the table.

[ww520]

I think OP specifically talked about this assertion, "Your Erlang program should just run N times faster on an N core processor." This assertion is about parallelism, not concurrency.

[chrisseaton]

I don't know what to say apart from that I disagree with how your describing my argument back to me.

[xapata]

Funny how often that's the only reasonable response. Nitpick: s/your/you're/. I do my part to stop language drift.