> ... there are no deadlocks by name (just other problems). Okay, supposing we have a definition of deadlock that agrees with your usage: sure. But then these

> ... there are no deadlocks by name (just other problems). Okay, supposing we have a definition of deadlock that agrees with your usage: sure. But then these "other problems" you mention will have exactly the same practical effect as deadlock, right? A program will hang, sometimes unpredictably, based on more or less random decisions made by some low-level scheduling algorithm. And in that case, Pony's guarantee of no deadlock is (1) completely correct, and (2) completely meaningless, from the point of view of a programmer whose concern is that his code will behave as required. Am I wrong? EDIT. Maybe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10903876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10903876