Are you aware Erlang was designed to be a VM(the BEAM), a language for that VM(Erlang) and a comprehensive set of patterns and infrastructure for fault tolerance(OTP)?
All these as a whole are Erlang and the whole reason it has such reputation. I recommend reading https://erlang.org/download/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf
> But they aren't core to how the BEAM handles concurrent processing.
They are, unless you want to reduce it to "it's just a pre-emptive scheduler with greentrheads".
> In my experience I think my statement still stands.
They're similar in that both have (mostly)pre-emptive schedulers, that's about it.
Are you aware Erlang was designed to be a VM(the BEAM), a language for that VM(Erlang) and a comprehensive set of patterns and infrastructure for fault tolerance(OTP)?
All these as a whole are Erlang and the whole reason it has such reputation. I recommend reading https://erlang.org/download/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf
> But they aren't core to how the BEAM handles concurrent processing.
They are, unless you want to reduce it to "it's just a pre-emptive scheduler with greentrheads".
> In my experience I think my statement still stands.
They're similar in that both have (mostly)pre-emptive schedulers, that's about it.