3 ms·

Can't csp be implemented by actor-model semantics? Or are there differences beyond the sync/async communication? edit: not defending the article, just curious

• uriel 16y ago
  I guess almost everything can be implemented by something else that is general enough, the question is how convenient and practical it is. A core concept in CSP for is channels, and I think you can mostly build that on top of an actor-model, but I don't think that is the way I would do it. In Go and similar languages for example it is usual to pass channels around, and even send channels over channels, I'm not sure how one would translate that into an actor-model, but I doubt the result would be as clear. This is not a criticism of the actor-model, just trying to say that they involve different ways of thinking about concurrency and trying to apply one to the other probably will end up with a mess.
  • puredanger 16y ago
    If you send references to actors inside messages between actors, then I think you're pretty close to the same idea. The main constraint that actors add is that an actor has one incoming mailbox. In CSP you have more flexibility to have multiple input channels or other arrangements. I have no idea whether that really gives you a more interesting level of power or not. Channels are good stuff.