|
|
|
|
|
by lifeisstillgood
4824 days ago
|
|
Can I rephrase slightly (and take the odd strawman liberty) The "mainstream" has been relying on incremental improvements for decades, and in doing so avoided rewriting legacy code until last possible moment Some people have taken concurrency upfront and anecdotally seen cost / performance benefits plus more modern codebases and have anecdotally enjoyed competitive advantages in areas where concurrency makes a difference We will never see the average, user interface bother with concurrency and legacy rewrites because the competitive advantages are low. There are likely to be areas where the concurrency advantage is great enough - if you like erlang look for those niches |
|
It's like designing a race car, or a fighter jet. Sure, they are amazing things. But are people ever going to commute to work in anything resembling a Bugatti Veyron or an F-22? Of course not. Neither maximum automotive performance nor air combat effectiveness are the sorts of things that are normally necessary to optimize for in daily life. Some time in the far future we're going to have both the tools to write amazingly efficient programs and to do so with a minimal amount of fuss from the programmer's perspective, but it'll be a long time getting there. And in the meantime there are going to be plenty of cycles of figuring out how to produce performance gains with the least disruption to existing ways of doing things.