BTW I did not mean to imply you are wrong, just wanted to give some extra
background.
He specifically mentions: the problems of distributed programs are much
harder - [...] *direct observation is not possible* [...]
On Friday, 6 February 2015 13:21:52 UTC, Andre Richards wrote:
>
> Have a look
Have a look here: http://clojure.org/state
In the section *Message Passing and Actors*, he gives his reasoning.
Basically, Actors were designed for distributed programs, but that comes
with added complexity and a performance hit. He wanted a simpler model,
because he was mainly concerned about
Thanks, "not widely used" - so I guess it is totally unrelated to "multi
agent systems"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-agent_system
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 4:00:51 AM UTC-8, Gary Verhaegen wrote:
>
> They are different from actors because Rich is "unenthusiastic about
> actors". I
They are different from actors because Rich is "unenthusiastic about
actors". I'm not sure there is any single piece of reference where he
himself describes exactly why he does not like actors, but here is a guess.
Actors have one very desirable property: they encapsulate some state, and
the actor
In fact agents in Scala were the only version I found that were like
Clojure in design.
Beyond the fact that they exist in Scala, and the design goal was to
replicate Clojure's agents, I didn't find that especially informative.
On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 6:59:09 PM UTC-8, Leonardo Borges
>
>
> (as opposed to the combined state+behavior version of agents that one sees
> elsewhere)
>
>
Did you mean to say actors? Actor is the abstraction that bundles state and
behaviour together.
Agents are different and in fact, Akka, a popular JVM actor library,
provides agents in addition to acto
I've used agents, and am familiar with the "reactive agent" concept as
presented on the page http://clojure.org/agents
I just now decided to look into the background of this distinction (as
opposed to the combined state+behavior version of agents that one sees
elsewhere) and am stumped. When I
