3 ms·

For me, the real 'click' moment with core.async wasn't just about replacing callbacks. It was realizing I could model entire business processes as a system of c

For me, the real 'click' moment with core.async wasn't just about replacing callbacks. It was realizing I could model entire business processes as a system of communicating channels. It completely changed how I think about system design.

akkad33 1y ago
Is it like elixir actors
- lgrapenthin 1y ago
  No. Those have unbounded message queues.
  - akkad33 1y ago
    Thanks. Is that the only difference
    - didibus 1y ago
      It's quite different, the way you model things, it's entirely different. Even though both are able to deliver highly concurrent computation. A process in Elixir has an id, state, and is sent messages to its address. The message are queued inside the process, and handled one at a time. One process can spawn another, and so on. It's more like white collar workers sending emails to each other. In core.async, a Process is anonymous, it doesn't have an id and doesn't have an address. You cannot send messages to it. Instead a process is more like a worker on an assembly line with conveyor belts. What matters are the conveyor belts and what's on them. Where things go from one belt to the next and what happens to the things as they flow through. You can have multiple workers working a belt and if something jams dependent belts stop. The belts are called Channels.
blackbear_ 1y ago
Curious if you have found any resources to learn more about this way of thinking?
- wvdlaan 1y ago
  Perhaps this is a good place to start reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicating_sequential_processes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicating_sequential_proce...
- puredanger 1y ago
  Rich Hickey actually did a talk called "Language of the System" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROor6_NGIWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROor6_NGIWU way back in 2013 before core.async was even created that lays out a lot of the ideas. It even has a big section explicitly about "flow" which contains the germs of core.async.flow.

akkad33 1y ago

Is it like elixir actors

lgrapenthin 1y ago
No. Those have unbounded message queues.
- akkad33 1y ago
  Thanks. Is that the only difference
  - didibus 1y ago
    It's quite different, the way you model things, it's entirely different. Even though both are able to deliver highly concurrent computation. A process in Elixir has an id, state, and is sent messages to its address. The message are queued inside the process, and handled one at a time. One process can spawn another, and so on. It's more like white collar workers sending emails to each other. In core.async, a Process is anonymous, it doesn't have an id and doesn't have an address. You cannot send messages to it. Instead a process is more like a worker on an assembly line with conveyor belts. What matters are the conveyor belts and what's on them. Where things go from one belt to the next and what happens to the things as they flow through. You can have multiple workers working a belt and if something jams dependent belts stop. The belts are called Channels.

blackbear_ 1y ago

Curious if you have found any resources to learn more about this way of thinking?

wvdlaan 1y ago
Perhaps this is a good place to start reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicating_sequential_processes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicating_sequential_proce...
puredanger 1y ago
Rich Hickey actually did a talk called "Language of the System" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROor6_NGIWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROor6_NGIWU way back in 2013 before core.async was even created that lays out a lot of the ideas. It even has a big section explicitly about "flow" which contains the germs of core.async.flow.