i hate bytecode manipulation but

[Raoul Duke]

http://blog.paralleluniverse.co/2013/05/02/quasar-pulsar/

[William la Forge]

Once again I read that actors are robust. But this only works with idempotent message processing, and examples of actors do not use idempotent message processing.

Fraud in the face of promoting the language, or what? And likely the real reason why actors remain a niche technology.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://blog.paralleluniverse.co/2013/05/02/quasar-pulsar/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AgileWikiDevelopers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to agilewikidevelo...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to agilewiki...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/agilewikidevelopers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Raoul Duke]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:35 AM, William la Forge <lafo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again I read that actors are robust. But this only works with
> idempotent message processing, and examples of actors do not use idempotent
> message processing.
>
> Fraud in the face of promoting the language, or what? And likely the real
> reason why actors remain a niche technology.

As somebody who likes to know about The Right Abstractions, I am also
greatly concerned by this. I don't know if it is confusion, or
nefariousness. Maybe people are clueless, and do not recognize the
problems? Or know something better could be possible?

I think that Hewitt (nice enough guy in person! but kinda *terrible*
online) while spamming on www.lambda-the-ultimate.org did write that
messages have to be / are assumed to be idempotent?

If you can blog about your thoughts on this somewhere that would be nice.

[William la Forge]

I've given up. Too many frustrated actor advocates who have become fanatical for having their ultimate answer be ignored by the IT community at large.

And I am in danger of the same thing. So I gotta ask, why is lazy deserialization not a big thing?

[Raoul Duke]

> And I am in danger of the same thing. So I gotta ask, why is lazy
> deserialization not a big thing?

Well, ignore the people who won't listen. Write for the people who are
trying to find the nuggets out there. That way I can learn from you!
:-) It isn't how many people change, it is just making sure the
information doesn't rot and die off.

(yes i need to hurry up and make a million dollars so i can fund
everybody's research...)

[William la Forge]

This has turned into quite a discussion: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/clojure/rmScc6ddkNI