3 ms·
If you're dealing with message passing architectures a language like Scala is a good way to go. Actors or Mailboxes in F# parlance fit perfectly with the way th
by fleitz 16y ago
If you're dealing with message passing architectures a language like Scala is a good way to go. Actors or Mailboxes in F# parlance fit perfectly with the way the architecture was described.
His point about code fashion is also equally valid, what Seurat did with pointillism is impressive, printing a picture on on your inkjet is not, even though what Seurat did is essentially the same thing.
Coming from an imperative background writing in a functional style has risk, coming from a functional background imperative style has risk. You can implement the lambda calculus on a UTM and implement a UTM in the lambda calculus, for all intents and purposes they are the same, however, in terms of elegance they are far different. (And there are arguments on both sides as to which is more elegant).
I tend to agree with you particularly on 'enterprise architects' but the solutions are usually a reinvention of the wheel rather than marrying two disparate technologies that actually fit quite well together. Scala or another functional language is a great fit to a message bus architecture. Doing something for the difficulty of it usually doesn't attract a lot of smart minds, putting two things together that at first one wouldn't think of but that makes sense WILL pique the interest of a talented developer because he wants to see if it actually bears fruit.
- Stormbringer 16y agoI'm sorry, I think I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you really complaining that Java doesn't do messaging? Surely not, because that would be like saying that Lisp is okay, but it would be better with a heap more parenthesis. When you get down to it, pretty much any language with even a rudimentary ability to manipulate strings and connect to a socket can do messaging. But right from day one Java has had the capability of communicating with remote machines baked in. Oh wait, I just checked, I'm wrong. The Remote and Serializable interfaces date since Java 1.1, NOT since day 1. My bad. Of course 1.1 was released Feb 19, 1997 so RMI is almost exactly 14 years old at this point. So my conclusion is that if you've been living under a rock for exactly 14 years, you have an excuse when you say that Java can't do messaging. ---- Someone always comes along and says "what about $blindingly_obvious_thing and gets massive amounts of karma for doing so, so let me just say that yes, I am aware of... bugger it, I'll do it myself and reap the karma. Muahahahaha! ... ...dang, there's no reply to my own message option. (For obvious reasons) Oh well, we'll have to settle for option #2 which is that someone comes along and posts an objection which has nothing to do with any of the posts before it, and gets masses of karma for it. ---- Addendum: If you're implementing a messaging system in your handy dandy language with sockets and strings, and you want it to be robust, you will of course need to take into account this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Computing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Comput... or a more in-depth look at them: http://www.rgoarchitects.com/Files/fallacies.pdf http://www.rgoarchitects.com/Files/fallacies.pdf cheerio, pip pip