On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Andrey Fedorov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > If we *do** *want to define "complexity", we could put a constraint on > these CRT graphs, like "nodes have no state"? This is starting to smell like > the classical argument against OOP. > > Cheers, > Andrey > > What "classical argument" are you referring to? In system A, nodes have no explicit state - in other words, state is not given a name the outside world can refer to and inquire upon. >From the perspective of side effects, system A can still have deadlocks and/or race conditions (ordering side-effects that lead to unsafe computational sequences). We can adorn each node in A with an effect type, possibly allowing each node to have a type defined by a separate type system. In system B, nodes have explicit coordination of computational sequences, but that explicit coordination does not guarantee safety. As I understand current thinking in category theory, such as work by Glynn Winskel on general nets, the big idea is to unfold System B into an occurrence net, thus giving its precise semantics, which we can then show to be either (a) inconsistent (b) consistent (c) undecidable (d) unknown [know technique for unfolding is known].
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
