2018-05-11 15:31 GMT+02:00 Christopher Lemmer Webber <cweb...@dustycloud.org
> In comparison to Syndicate, Goblins is less a new language and more a
> lightweight library for actors that interfaces nicely with "#lang
> racket" type code
For me personally Goblin would be the better choice I think.
> whereas Syndicate is its own language and I would also
> say a bit more ambitious than Goblins is.
That would be a bridge too far for me, but still very interesting.
However, I'll try to read more about it.
However I would describe Goblins as pre-alpha... there are not even docs
> yet. However I do have plans to use it very seriously.
In fact, I will be writing a federated social network using it. If you
> are familiar with MediaGoblin, I am working on MediaGoblin's successor,
> "Spritely", which will be written in Racket. This will be an
> ActivityPub based social network system (ActivityPub is a distributed
> social network system which is also based on the actor model, btw).
> This means it will be compatible with Mastodon, etc.
> Also, fwiw, Tony Garnock-Jones and I are talking... I think Goblins and
> Syndicate have a lot to learn from each other, as do their authors.
> Tony and I just had a very fruitful voice call this week, talking about
> object serialization for message passing and other such things using
> canonical s-expressions. :)
> PS: Tony's dissertation is great, and if you're interested in actors
> stuff, I recommend reading it. Well, I'm only about 1/5 of the way
> through, but what I've read so far is good. ;)
That is great. Too many times research is not shared (often not knowing
about each other's work).
So, great to see that there is some common ground and cross fertilization!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.