Scala Actors: Unifying thread-based and event-based programming

Re:Scala Actors: Unifying thread-based and event-based progr... by lomnakkus on Sunday January 11, 2015 @07:49PM (#8871979)

I said nothing about STM. I said something about actors vs. "normal programs" ("normal" = "typical").

> are you simply asserting that actors aren't as useful as STM when you need consensus and a stable view of some data across processes?

I'm saying that "consensus" and "a stable view" are things that you needn't concern yourself with if you're not already thinking in terms of the actor model. And you shouldn't have to!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scala Actors: Unifying thread-based and event-based progr... by lostcolony on Sunday January 11, 2015 @09:45PM (#8872265)

Your response to DanWaterworth made me assume you were speaking from a perspective that valued STM, but fair enough. I agree; 'typical' programs do not lend themselves to actors; you have to change how you write programs (the same would be said for Haskell, of course).

"consensus" and "a stable view" are things you -definitely- need to concern yourself about if you need such things and are working in a distributed environment, actor model or not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scala Actors: Unifying thread-based and event-based progr... by lomnakkus on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @03:54PM (#8882524)

I am a fan of STM. I think we may just have been talking at cross purposes -- it's about what the definition of "process" is :).

[ Parent | on HN ]