One of the original reasons for "message-based" was the simple relativistic
one. What we decided is that trying to send messages to explicit receivers had
real scaling problems, whereas "receiving messages" is a good idea.
Cheers,
Alan
>________________________________
> From: Eugen Leitl <eu...@leitl.org>
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:11 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Terminology: "Object Oriented" vs "Message Oriented"
>
>On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:33:04AM -0700, Jeff Gonis wrote:
>> I see no one has taken Alan's bait and asked the million dollar question:
>> if you decided that messaging is no longer the right path for scaling, what
>> approach are you currently using?
>
>Classical computation doesn't allow storing multiple bits
>in the same location, so relativistic signalling introduces
>latency. Asynchronous shared-nothing message passing is
>the only thing that scales, as it matches the way how this
>universe does things (try looking at light cones for consistent
>state for multiple writes to the same location -- this
>of course applies to cache coherency).
>
>Inversely, doing things in a different way will guarantee
>that you won't be able to scale. It's not just a good idea,
>it's the law.
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>fonc@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
