Geek asks and answers

Erlang vs. zeromq + any language for embedded applications

I want to write actor-style code for embedded processors, and I'm trying to decide between writing everything in Erlang and writing everything in zeromq + any language. Using zeromq looks very powerful in the sense that I can use any programming language and make my development much easier (many libraries are available), but then I'm not sure if there is any information in this power? I understand that Erlang is an actor model much better, especially with OTP concepts, but then it seems easy to imagine a similar actor model with zeromq? Am I looking at it right?

1. What do I really lose by not using Erlang for embedded applications (where distributed processing, Erlang's power point, is NOT required) and just create things based on a common messaging infrastructure like zeromq?

2.Is Erlang offers a more than coordinated messaging framework for an unallocated embedded application?

3. What specific features of Erlang could take too long with zeromq?

+5
source share
3 answers

You are comparing apples and oranges. Part of the benefits of using Erlang is the language; if you are going to contrast zmq + with any other language, the other language in this comparison really matters. zmq + ARM build? Erlang brings all the great benefits of non-ASM manual coding.

Erlang , Embedded Erlang? , Erlang , , , Erlang OTP, C REPL copy-paste .

, , REPL , , .

+3

, , ​​ Zmq. Erlang , . Erlang , .

Zmq, , , , . , , Erlang.

, Erlang . , , , 6-10 , Erlang/OTP 15 .

, - . , . , concurrency .

+3

ZeroMQ = / = Erlang covers many differences. It is argued that ZeroMQ provides only the messaging aspect, not light processes, process monitoring, and other aspects.

0
source

More articles:


All Articles