, May 16, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Fabio Kaminski
fabiokamin...@gmail.comwrote:
Sorry about using the list like twitter..
but i thought this is a pretty good article about functional programming
side effects, and why actors are not very good design decision..
Actors not good for concurrency model
Actors in Erlang DO have mutable state, you're just discouraged from
using it. ;) No really, erl -man get and set. Sometimes you're forced
to use this despite the best of intentions.
I don't think anyone is trying to claim that it is impossible to
mutate shared in state in an erlang actor. The
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Peter Schuller
peter.schul...@infidyne.com wrote:
Actors in Erlang DO have mutable state, you're just discouraged from
using it. ;) No really, erl -man get and set. Sometimes you're forced
to use this despite the best of intentions.
I don't think anyone is
I'm not sure why a getValue/setValue is any different from an ='s
sign. Instability and unpredictability still results. Be they actors
or threads, neither really solves any sort of problem save perhaps
atomic updates.
My (unproven) gut feeling is that people are afraid of machine
concurrency,
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Fabio Kaminski fabiokamin...@gmail.comwrote:
Sorry about using the list like twitter..
but i thought this is a pretty good article about functional programming
side effects, and why actors are not very good design decision..
Actors not good for concurrency
this is a pretty good article about functional
programming
side effects, and why actors are not very good design decision..
Actors not good for concurrency model :
http://pchiusano.blogspot.com/2010/01/actors-are-not-good-concurrency...
just another prove that Rich thoughts are pretty
far as i know..actors share a mutable queue.. so there's good possibility
for dead-locks
Actors as they work in erlang don't have mutable state (not
intrinsically anyway, though of course you can implement an actor that
does poke on shared data since it's your code). The 'state' in an
erlang
Actors in Erlang DO have mutable state, you're just discouraged from
using it. ;) No really, erl -man get and set. Sometimes you're forced
to use this despite the best of intentions.
But I really have to ask, how composable were monads again?
- dlf
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Peter
i don't expect it would be hard to write an Erlang program with 2
actors that would deadlock.
Of course it wouldn't.
as far as i know, people use timeouts on
message handling to sweep it under the carpet.
Most people probably use the OTP library with well-defined behaviors
is what they call
Sorry about using the list like twitter..
but i thought this is a pretty good article about functional programming
side effects, and why actors are not very good design decision..
Actors not good for concurrency model :
http://pchiusano.blogspot.com/2010/01/actors-are-not-good-concurrency
about using the list like twitter..
but i thought this is a pretty good article about functional programming
side effects, and why actors are not very good design decision..
Actors not good for concurrency model
:http://pchiusano.blogspot.com/2010/01/actors-are-not-good-concurrency...
just
11 matches
Mail list logo
