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) stat

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 messages that depend

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 pile of data sta

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 of

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 channels >> whereas

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 > deal with all the

[go-nuts] Re: Channels vs Actors

The main difference is that goroutines do blocking takes from channels whereas actors receive asynchronous events. This means that actors have to deal with all the situations in asynchronous programming that are inherently difficult to deal with (inherently means there is no general way to solv