3 ms·
This sounds a lot like the actor model (e.g. Erlang, Elixir, Scala + Akka). It's a great primitive for concurrency and distributed computing. Is there a big di
by acjohnson55 10y ago
This sounds a lot like the actor model (e.g. Erlang, Elixir, Scala + Akka). It's a great primitive for concurrency and distributed computing.
Is there a big difference here, or is this basically just an alternative language for that model?
- tekacs 10y agoWell at the top of the manual, the list of constraints[1] reads the same as the actor model[2] (it explicitly uses local state ('store') to model behaviour changes), with the word 'machine' substituted for 'actor'. If anything it reads like the restricted form of the actor model produced by using only Erlang's gen_fsm or Akka's FSM mixin. (to be clear, using a restricted form with more constraints is a great thing - even better here, where one of the domains they're serving seems to be fairly restricted execution environments) [1]: > Each operation either updates the local store, sends messages to other machines, or creates new machines. > In P, a send operation is non-blocking; the message is simply enqueued into the input queue of the target machine. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model#Fundamental_concepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model#Fundamental_concep...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]