<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Ryan Newton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rrnewton@gmail.com">rrnewton@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
> I have interfaced Erlang and Haskell... And delivered it as a product. I<br>
> just came up with a dead-simple text based communication syntax from Erlang<br>
> to Haskell that was very easily testable. It allowed for complete isolation<br>
<br>
Interesting. I can't imagine there are too many people who have done<br>
this. So I must ask -- given the explicit attempt to imitate Erlang<br>
in recent CloudHaskell work, does that come close to giving you<br>
everything you would have wanted in this app?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't know, as I've not looked at all at CloudHaskell at all. My current job doesn't really give me a lot of time for it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There's definite advantages to polyglot programming approaches. The difficulty is in the glue, and that doesn't have to really be that difficult. I just picked a text based protocol that was really easy to implement and understand as well as test externally. No XML, no JSON, nothing "standardized", just tiny and really obvious. With a sufficiently simple protocol getting C++, haskell and erlang on the same page was pretty trivial, and the separation of concerns for each piece was really well drawn.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It felt like what was meant by the unix philosophy of one good tool for each job coordinated over pipes because well that's exactly what I did.</div><div><br></div><div>Dave</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
(Hot code update being the big missing piece.)<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"> -Ryan<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br>