sending a message to a remote node is just a special case of eval. instead of arbitrary code you're evaling `pid ! msg`. and what is spawning a remote process if not remote code eval?
when i say there's no security model i mean there's no internal security model. you can impose network based security (restricting what nodes can connect to epmd/other nodes) or use the cookie based security (a bad idea) or you can even implement your own carrier that uses some other authentication (i believe there a few examples of this in the wild) but the default is that any node that can successfully make a connection has full priveleges
as for ETS, you can query any data structure with arbitrary functions. that's exactly what i mean when i say there's limited query capabilities. all you can really do is read the keys and values and pass them to functions
my experience and the experience of others is that elixir and erlang are not significantly more efficient than other languages and do not lead to a reduction in the total number of nodes you need to run. whatsapp is frequently cited as an example of "doing more with less" but it's compared to bloated and inefficient implementations of the same idea and not with other successful implementations. facebook certainly wasn't using thousands of mq brokers to power facebook chat. no one is replacing hundreds of activemq brokers with a small number of rabbitmq brokers
you can absolutely build stateless servers with erlang/elixir (and you should! stateless is just better for the way we deploy and operate modern networked services). my point is that many of the "advantages" of elixir/erlang are not applicable if you are delivering stateless services
when i said you could deliver erlang/elixir features in a weekend, i did not mean all of them. i meant specifically distribution and ets. you are right that the actor model, supervision trees and immutable copy-on-write data structures are all necessary for the full elixir/erlang experience. i generally like that experience and think it is a nice model for programs. i don't think however it is very applicable to writing http apis. java, rust, python, go, ruby and basically every other language are also great at delivering http apis and they don't have these same features
> sending a message to a remote node is just a special case of eval. instead of arbitrary code you're evaling `pid ! msg`. and what is spawning a remote process if not remote code eval?
They are not equivalent at all, sending a message is sending data, evaluation is execution of arbitrary code. BEAM does not implement send/2 using eval. Spawning a process on a remote node only involves eval if you spawn a fun, but spawning an MFA is not eval, it’s executing code already defined on that node.
> as for ETS, you can query any data structure with arbitrary functions. that's exactly what i mean when i say there's limited query capabilities. all you can really do is read the keys and values and pass them to functions
You misunderstood, you can _query_ with arbitrary functions, not read some data and then traverse it like a regular data structure (obviously you can do that too).
> my experience and the experience of others is that elixir and erlang are not significantly more efficient than other languages and do not lead to a reduction in the total number of nodes you need to run.
I’m not sure what your experience is with Erlang or Elixir, but you seem to have some significant misconceptions about their implementation and capabilities. I’ve been working with both professionally for 5 years and casually for almost double that, and my take is significantly more nuanced than that. Neither are a silver bullet or magic, but they excel in the domains where concurrency and fault tolerance are the dominant priorities, and they are both very productive languages to work in. They have their weak points, as all languages do, language design is fundamentally about trade offs, and these two are no different.
If all you are building are stateless HTTP APIs, then yes, there are loads of equally capable languages for that, but Elixir is certainly pleasant and capable for the task, so it’s not really meaningful to make that statement. Using that as the baseline for evaluating languages isn’t particularly useful either - it’s essentially the bare minimum requirement of any general purpose language.
i was not claiming the distribution code literally calls eval, just that it is functionally equivalent to a system that calls eval. you agree that it is possible to eval arbitrary code across node boundaries, yes?
i used erlang for 4 years professionally and elixir for parts of 5. i think both are good, useful languages. i just take issue with the misrepresentation of their features as something unique to erlang/elixir
advocates should talk up pattern matching, supervision trees and copy-on-write data structures imo. those are where erlang and elixir really shine. instead they overhype the distribution system, ets, the actor model and tools like dialyzer which are all bound to disappoint anyone who seriously investigates them
> i was not claiming the distribution code literally calls eval, just that it is functionally equivalent to a system that calls eval.
Not really. The distribution can only call code that exists in the other node. So while the system can be used as if it was an evaluator, it is not because of its primitives, but rather due to functionality that was built on top. If you nuke "erl_eval" out of the system, then the evaluation capabilities are gone.
I agree it is a thin line to draw but the point is that any message passing system can become an evaluator if you implement an evaluator alongside the message passing system. :)
> elixir/erlang's features that increase it's reliability on a single machine are a cost you pay not an added benefit
Agreed! Erlang/Elixir features should not be used to increase the reliability on a single machine. Rather, they can be used to make the most use of individual machines, allowing you to reduce operational complexity in some places.
when i say there's no security model i mean there's no internal security model. you can impose network based security (restricting what nodes can connect to epmd/other nodes) or use the cookie based security (a bad idea) or you can even implement your own carrier that uses some other authentication (i believe there a few examples of this in the wild) but the default is that any node that can successfully make a connection has full priveleges
as for ETS, you can query any data structure with arbitrary functions. that's exactly what i mean when i say there's limited query capabilities. all you can really do is read the keys and values and pass them to functions
my experience and the experience of others is that elixir and erlang are not significantly more efficient than other languages and do not lead to a reduction in the total number of nodes you need to run. whatsapp is frequently cited as an example of "doing more with less" but it's compared to bloated and inefficient implementations of the same idea and not with other successful implementations. facebook certainly wasn't using thousands of mq brokers to power facebook chat. no one is replacing hundreds of activemq brokers with a small number of rabbitmq brokers
you can absolutely build stateless servers with erlang/elixir (and you should! stateless is just better for the way we deploy and operate modern networked services). my point is that many of the "advantages" of elixir/erlang are not applicable if you are delivering stateless services
when i said you could deliver erlang/elixir features in a weekend, i did not mean all of them. i meant specifically distribution and ets. you are right that the actor model, supervision trees and immutable copy-on-write data structures are all necessary for the full elixir/erlang experience. i generally like that experience and think it is a nice model for programs. i don't think however it is very applicable to writing http apis. java, rust, python, go, ruby and basically every other language are also great at delivering http apis and they don't have these same features