On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM, erik quanstrom <quans...@coraid.com> wrote:
> > > > on p. 43/44 i believe it is claimed that one > > > > cannot do CSP without pure functional > > > > programming. > > > > > > (p ⇒ q) ⇏ (¬p ⇒ ¬q) > > > > > > > > That's interesting because pure functional programming doesn't exist at > all > > in the strictest sense on a computer. One MUST be able to cause side > > effects during computation or your CPU will just get hot... if even that. > > i read the slides as contrasts, not as > logical conjunctions. > > i still don't understand the claim that message passing > requires "thousands of message protocols" > and can't do syncronization. > > I also don't get that. What was meant by his usage of "protocol". Erlang uses only a handful of patterns that work really well for interaction in each subsystem. If they think of messaging and protocols in a smalltalky way, then each class has a protocol of messages (methods) that must be implemented, but I don't get why that's bad. It's called an API. I mean HTTP has a small protocol, but if you count all the things you can do with REST, then it looks like a lot more. Dave > - erik > >
