Re: [go-nuts] Re: Channels vs Actors

I had a related question asked on Elixir Forum: Is handle_call part of the Actor Model? Since it sequentialize/synchronize things, is sound a bit like CSP (to me). An answer provided by Joe Armstrong (one of Erlang inventors)

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Channels vs Actors

Thanks a lot, that was a solid information shared by everyone. On Thursday, 8 March 2018 17:51:55 UTC+5:30, Jesper Louis Andersen wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:37 AM Haddock > wrote: > >> The fundamental problem with asynchronous programming is that >> asynchronous

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Channels vs Actors

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:37 AM Haddock wrote: > The fundamental problem with asynchronous programming is that asynchronous > messages that depend on each other from the application logic "may not > meet" and miss each other. Let's say, several threads start to search > through a

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Channels vs Actors

> > > >> Actors have an advantage when used for distributed systems. If two actors >> on different boxes communicate with each other it is not a problem to make >> communication work without data loss through the principle of supervision. >> Supervision is the idea Joe Armstrong (the creator

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Channels vs Actors

Am Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 10:17:02 UTC+1 schrieb Anto Aravinth: > > Thanks everyone and thanks Haddock for such a detailed response. Few > questions: > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Haddock > wrote: > >> The main difference is that goroutines do blocking takes from

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Channels vs Actors

Thanks everyone and thanks Haddock for such a detailed response. Few questions: On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Haddock wrote: > The main difference is that goroutines do blocking takes from channels > whereas actors receive asynchronous events. This means that actors have to >