Towards the end, it seems like you also suffer from some hand-waviness. Perhaps you could flesh out the hand wavy portions in some future posts.
In particular, I would focus on how to transitively handle messages. For example, a common error I see by some academics who are overly zealous about functional programming and Hindley-Milner type systems is that they believe if an actor cannot handle a message directly, then we cannot say anything meaningful about the return type of the reply. This is not true, of course, it is simply that we need a way to model the union of all reply possibilities. Stuff like partial failure is hard to do elegantly, but does not excuse hand-wavy explanations. Looking forward to your future blogging! Cheers, Z-Bo On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Dale Schumacher <dale.schumac...@gmail.com > wrote: > Published: > "Actors in Clojure — Why Not?" (http://bit.ly/9ZUXaQ) > http://www.dalnefre.com/wp/2010/06/actors-in-clojure-why-not/ > > This article provides a counterpoint to Rich Hickey's rationale for > not including actor-based concurrency in Clojure. > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
