In Armstrong Thesis there are explicit assertion about why thread-based JVM is a flawed design.
My point was that there is a big difference between a VM for a functional and imperative language (immutability makes it and GC a lot simpler). JVM's selling points, that it is "general" and is "already here" are strong, but in my opinion, its praise is more religion-like repetition of dogmas and marketing memes.
I would like to assert that Erlang designers have made better design decisions (to avoid threading and mutation whatsoever) so Erlang's VM is much simpler, more stable (JVM crashes often, wastes memory - memory used vs. memory served ratio, and GC behavior tend to become unpredictable for long-running process) and good-enough.
Comments
In Armstrong Thesis there are explicit assertion about why thread-based JVM is a flawed design.
My point was that there is a big difference between a VM for a functional and imperative language (immutability makes it and GC a lot simpler). JVM's selling points, that it is "general" and is "already here" are strong, but in my opinion, its praise is more religion-like repetition of dogmas and marketing memes.
I would like to assert that Erlang designers have made better design decisions (to avoid threading and mutation whatsoever) so Erlang's VM is much simpler, more stable (JVM crashes often, wastes memory - memory used vs. memory served ratio, and GC behavior tend to become unpredictable for long-running process) and good-enough.