:) Just to be clear, whilst I have some views on the Akka approach, specifically addressing Patrick's question:
I don't think there's much prospect of people making a "technological leap" to River from Akka because the real trigger for such a jump would be a change in mindset. And because there have been so many "remoting failures" that didn't trigger that mindset leap I don't see how Akka would provoke the change anymore than anything previously. And, if I've saved you from a little RSI you're most welcome :) On 24 October 2011 12:45, De Groot, Cees <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the rant, Dan - saves me a lot of typing :). > > It seems we have a generation of people that have been educated in software > development while being well shielded from a) the hardware, and b) anything > previously accomplished in the field. I've just started up a little project > to do HA and fast messaging, and people are surprised that I insist on > getting the HA bits right before even considering writing a single line of > code for the actual messaging/queueing, etcetera. But then, I've yet to see > one good product where HA (and scalablity, in various combinations) worked > when it was slapped on as an afterthought. > > The best thing that Jini/River has to teach us is to what extent remoting > needs to be transparent to the developer. Sadly enough, more than most people > are willing to put up with, but it's pretty hard to ignore basic facts of > your trade and still expect working outcomes. > > On the initial question: I'd love to see first-class bindings for Scala in > River (especially employing the function-as-a-first-class-citizen bit). > Sounds like a cool project (but then, I got the one I just started to > complete first ;-)).
