4 ms·
I said nothing about STM. I said something about actors vs. "normal programs" ("normal" = "typical"). > are you simply asserting that actors aren't as useful a
by lomnakkus 12y ago
I said nothing about STM. I said something about actors vs. "normal programs" ("normal" = "typical").
> are you simply asserting that actors aren't as useful as STM when you need consensus and a stable view of some data across processes?
I'm saying that "consensus" and "a stable view" are things that you needn't concern yourself with if you're not already thinking in terms of the actor model. And you shouldn't have to!
- lostcolony 12y agoYour response to DanWaterworth made me assume you were speaking from a perspective that valued STM, but fair enough. I agree; 'typical' programs do not lend themselves to actors; you have to change how you write programs (the same would be said for Haskell, of course). "consensus" and "a stable view" are things you -definitely- need to concern yourself about if you need such things and are working in a distributed environment, actor model or not.
- lomnakkus 12y agoI am a fan of STM. I think we may just have been talking at cross purposes -- it's about what the definition of "process" is :).