4 ms·
Well, if you include Excel, one could argue the paradigm is actually immensely successful. :)
by dahauns 7y ago
Well, if you include Excel, one could argue the paradigm is actually immensely successful. :)
- chubot 7y agoI wouldn't include Excel -- it's similar to but not the same as the model presented in the CTM book. You could call "excel" dataflow but the problem with that term is that are a dozen distinct models that can be called "dataflow". Similar to why "Google Cloud Dataflow" is a bad product name. That's also dataflow but the term is so general that it's not useful. For example, in Excel, derived cells are recomputed when their sources change. This is true of some dataflow proramming languages but not others, including the one in CTM. This is expensive and has a lot of bearing on the implementation. In fact I learned a few years ago Excel is occasionally wrong in both directions: - it fails to recompute cells that are dirty in the name of speed - it recomputes cells that are clean even though it's not strictly necessary That's probably a fine tradeoff for Excel but you wouldn't want a programming language with those semantics.