Nice diatribe against actors by someone who's apparently never... actually... used... actors. Clojure is really nice, but that doesn't mean I'm going to buy into weak arguments against features it doesn't have in its core.
On May 16, 12:19 pm, Fabio Kaminski <fabiokamin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry about using the list like twitter.. > > but i thought this is a pretty good "article" about functional programming > side effects, and why actors are not very good design decision.. > > Actors not good for concurrency model > :http://pchiusano.blogspot.com/2010/01/actors-are-not-good-concurrency... > > just another prove that Rich thoughts are pretty concise , > and that all are pretty well materialized in clojure's framework. > > what convinced me to embrace clojure, is that it choose to make the right > thing , instead of the popular one.. > > as haskell community says wisely : "avoid success at all costs " :) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
