by Natasha Mittal ⋅ edited by Abhishek Singh and Lindsey Kuper


In 1981, the Ericsson Computer Science Laboratory (CSLab) had been experimenting with ways to program telephony features in Prolog, a declarative language. Telecom applications in general are distributed systems with a large number of concurrent actions taking place. The downside to Prolog was that such declarative languages did not have error-handling facilities and also lacked the means for concurrency control across multiple systems. Thus began a series of collaborations which led to the development of Erlang.

Erlang is described in Joe Armstrong’s 2003 PhD thesis, “Making reliable distributed systems in the presence of software errors”. In it, he describes how Erlang supports building fault-tolerant systems. Since its inception in 1986, Erlang has grown popular for building reliable telecom applications. It has been used in Web Prioritizer and Mail Robustifier, two products developed by Bluetail, a company founded by Joe Armstrong. Ericsson’s AXD301, a scalable ATM switching system developed using Erlang middleware, was one of the company’s most successful new products from 1998 to the mid-2000s.

Armstrong describes Erlang as “a concurrent programming language designed for programming large-scale distributed soft real-time control applications”. It is used in conjunction with a collection of libraries and tools called OTP (Open Telecom Platform), which uses “supervision trees” to provide descriptions of error recovery actions to take for a given error. Erlang has been described as a “process-oriented” language; individual processes do not share memory and communicate via asynchronous message passing, hence maintaining strong isolation between concurrent processes. Since processes are isolated from each other, errors occuring in one process cannot propagate to other processes, so Erlang’s programming model is able to use fail-fast processes. Erlang also offers support for dynamic code replacement, which aids in code updating and maintenance without stopping the system. This is essential since telecom applications are long-lived, or, more often than not, aren’t shut down ever.

Concurrency-Oriented Programming

In his thesis, Armstrong coined the term COPL, which stands for “concurrency-oriented programming language”, and argued that Erlang falls into this category of languages. Armstrong wrote that the advantage of using COPLs is the way they can easily model real-world concurrent activities and map them onto concurrent processes in a one-to-one fashion, in contrast to non-COPLs, where one process or thread might control several independent activities.

As described in section 2.4.2 in Armstrong’s thesis, there are six essential characteristics of a COPL:

  1. It supports lightweight processes, i.e., the computation required to generate and destroy processes is minimal.
  2. It supports isolation of processes.
  3. Every process is identified uniquely by a Pid.
  4. There is no shared state between processes.
  5. Message passing does not guarantee delivery, and is pure (no dangling pointers or data references).
  6. Processes can detect the occurrence of, and the reason for, failures in other processes.

A critical requirement in COPLs is isolation. There must be strong isolation between the multiple processes running on a single machine. Unless programmed, no faults in any process should affect any of the other processes on the machine. To enable isolation, all processes have “share nothing” semantics and message passing between processes is asynchronous to prevent a sender of the message from getting indefinitely blocked in case software errors occur in the receiver. Data is also immutable within individual processes.

Another requirement is unforgeability of process names so that it is impossible to guess their names. Each process can only know its own name and the names of the child processes it has created. The act of revealing names to other processes is called the “name distribution problem”, mentioned in section 2.4.4 in Armstrong’s thesis. Such revelations have to be limited to trusted processes only to maintain system security.

Message passing has “send and pray” semantics in Erlang. Every message is assumed to be received in its entirety or not received at all. Messages can be sent to and received via mailboxes, which every process has. To aid isolation, a message cannot contain pointers or references to data structures residing on other machines. Additionally, messages are received in the exact order they were sent. A key advantage of message passing is scalability: message-passing systems are relatively easy to replicate over multiple isolated machines, thereby enabling fault tolerance as well. Even though individual components may fail, the probability of all of them failing at the same time is low.

Fault tolerance in Erlang

According to section 5.1 of Armstrong’s thesis, the main strategy for implementing fault tolerance is to try to perform a task, and if unsuccessful, try to perform a simpler task. In this manner, a hierarchy of tasks is established. This strategy helps avoid unnecessary complexity that might result in the system becoming less reliable.

Supervision hierarchies

Armstrong refers to these hierarchical organizations of tasks as “supervision hierarchies”. In this level-based organization, the highest-level task is to run an application according to specific parameters, and if not possible, to run simpler lower-level tasks. A system failure occurs if the lowest-level task cannot be performed successfully. As we go down to simpler tasks, failure to perform the task becomes more unlikely. It is also interesting to note that on encountering more and more failures at different levels, the emphasis becomes less towards providing complete service and more towards protecting the system. Hence it becomes important to have some mechanism to log all failures and their particular reasons.

The supervision hierarchy detects and attempts to stop errors from propagating upwards in the system. Every task is associated with a supervisor process which assigns it to a worker for achieving the goals necessary to complete the given task.

A supervisor needs to have the information about how to start, stop or restart every worker under it. This data is stored in an SSRS (Start Stop and Restart Specification). In a linear hierarchy, the rule is: stop all child processes if a parent asks to stop the supervisor; and to restart a child in case it dies.

Programming model

Process creation

Spawning is the way new processes are created in Erlang. THe spawn() function takes as arguments a module name and the name of a function within that module. For example, the call spawn(moduleA, response, [thank you]) creates a new process which executes a function named response defined within module moduleA with the argument thank you.

The newly spawned process executes the function, and spawn() returns the identifier for the spawned process, i.e., the Pid. Pids can then be used for message passing between individual processes.

Message Passing

All processes in Erlang use the same message-passing interface. Message passing is the only form of data exchange between two processes, and there is no data sharing. A message can be a list, a tuple, integers, and so on. Message passing takes place causally. The receive language construct directs a process to wait for a message to come from another process.

The example below is taken from the “Message Passing” subsection of the Erlang documnentation, which explains Erlang’s constructs for sending and receiving messages. In this example, two processes are created that send messages to each other a number of times.

-export([start/0, ping/2, pong/0]).

ping(0, Pong_PID) ->			
  Pong_PID ! finished,					%% syntax to send message, string ‘finished is being sent to process with Pid=Pong_PID
  io:format("ping finished~n", []);		

ping(N, Pong_PID) ->
  Pong_PID ! {ping, self()},		
  Receive						%% receive block does a pattern matching
    pong ->
      io:format("Ping received pong~n", [])
  ping(N - 1, Pong_PID).				%% recursive call to itself

pong() ->
    finished ->
      io:format("Pong finished~n", []);
    {ping, Ping_PID} ->
      io:format("Pong received ping~n", []),
      Ping_PID ! pong,

start() ->
  Pong_PID = spawn(msg_passing, pong, []),		%% a process is spawned which executes pong function
  spawn(msg_passing, ping, [3, Pong_PID]).			%% another process is spawned which executes ping message

An example run of the code looks like this:

Eshell V5.9.3.1  (abort with ^G)
1> c(msg_passing).
2> msg_passing:start().
Pong received ping
Ping received pong
Pong received ping
Ping received pong
Pong received ping
Ping received pong
ping finished
Pong finished

Process Linking

Linking of Erlang processes is done via link() or spawn_link() functions. The example discussed below has been taken from the “Errors and Processes” chapter of Learn You Some Erlang for Great Good!, which clearly explains how linking works in Erlang.

The chain() function in the linking module below spawns N processes, which are linked to each other.

-module(linking).				%% a module named linking is created
-export([chain/1]).				%% export makes chain function public

chain(0) ->					%% base case when N=0 and process dies after 2000 milliseconds
    _ -> ok
  after 2000 ->
    exit("chain dies here")

chain(N) ->					%% recursive call to spawn N processes and linking them to each other
  Pid = spawn(fun() -> chain(N-1) end),	%% spawns a new process running chain(N-1) func
    _ -> ok

After three recursive calls to linking:chain(), the process running chain(0) dies and this error propagates to other processes running with N=1, 2, and 3 consecutively. Eventually, the error propagates to the top-level Erlang shell process, erl shell, which also dies, as seen in the stack trace below.

Eshell V6.4.1.7  (abort with ^G)
1> link(spawn(linking, chain, [3])).		%% N = 3, so three processes are spawned
2> 2> 2> ** exception error: "chain dies here”
Stack Trace::
[erl shell] == [N=3] == [N=2] == [N=1] == [N=0]
[erl shell] == [N=3] == [N=2] == [N=1] == *dead*
[erl shell] == [N=3] == [N=2] == *dead*
[erl shell] == [N=3] == *dead*
[erl shell] == *dead*
*dead, error message shown*
[erl shell] <-- restarted       %% here erl also dies eventually.

The error propagation that linking enables is used by the aforementioned OTP supervision trees.


The past couple of decades have seen an increase in Erlang’s popularity. Databases like CouchDB, Scalaris, and Amazon SimpleDB have been implemented using Erlang. Erlang is also an increasingly popular choice for general-purpose programming, as in the Nitrogen framework for web development, or even Wings 3D, designed for graphics modeling. In conclusion, the following quote from Armstrong in a 2013 interview seems apt: “If Java is ‘write once, run anywhere’, then Erlang is ‘write once, run forever’.”