jolie

Another point which may be interesting: in Jolie a process inside of a microservice can have many input queues.

Embedding in Jolie looks like a language primitive implementing something that resembles some of the ideas found in supervision trees.

Both languages are based on message passing, but Erlang is functional whereas Jolie is classical imperative/stateful.

Take the movie Salt, where Angelina Jolie played the sort of role typically reserved for guys.

It looks like another interesting difference may come from the workflow primitives (e.g., sequence, parallel, input choice) that Jolie comes with.

You do not need to consider which protocol you will use in your logic, Jolie separates data format from logic by design.

If you use Jolie for implementing MVC, then every component is automatically a microservice (by construction from the language) and you can reuse them very easily in Jolie, Java, and Javascript inside of web browsers.

None of those concepts seem unique to Jolie compared to Erlang, but I have yet to understand the concepts of Jolie well enough to figure out if something is conceptually different.

Have you done anything in the jolie language to help this problem?

I used to feel that way until I heard Angelina Jolie speak on the issue.

This is the point where Jolie may have an advantage.

I would say Jolie is more of the former and less of the latter.

The reason for which Leonardo works is that "execution { concurrent }" line which tells Jolie to start a new (light) process whenever a top-level operation is invoked.

Assange wants to play "connect the dots" to imply something nefarious going on, but if Angelina Jolie were in the same meetings instead of Eric Schmidt, what would Assange be saying?

I doesn't appear to do anything in parallel (no "|" in the code, anyway) -- is this a thin wrapper around something more robust in the Jolie standard lib/run-time?

>Assange wants to play "connect the dots" to imply something nefarious going on, but if Angelina Jolie were in the same meetings instead of Eric Schmidt, what would Assange be saying?

Jolie processes are implemented as threads (cached in a thread pool when possible) with a local state (no data sharing, only communications).

Jolie provides architectural programming, e.g., you can make proxies abstracting from the behaviour of what you are composing with a language primitive.

Jolie has dynamic fault handling: fault handlers can be updated at runtime compositionally (higher-order code composition), which is afaik a new thing.