RE: [boost] Future of threads (III)

From: scott (scottw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-15 21:07:30

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Douglas Gregor
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 5:37 PM
> To: Boost mailing list
> Subject: Re: [boost] Future of threads (III)
> 

> > > This reminds me of the actor model of distributed
> > > computation. If you are
> > > familiar with actors, could you briefly compare/contrast your
> > > approach
> > > against them?
> >
> > i know of uml's actor but not sure if that's the same thing.
> > and my knowledge of uml is so lame i suspect i shouldnt attempt
> > any analogies.
> 
> I was not referring to UML actors, but to a model for (distributed) 
> computation.
> 
> > was there some specific aspect of alt-threads that needed
> > elaboration (yeah, like everything :-) or were you suggesting
> > a new direction for me to check out?
> 
> Well, you might be interested in this:
> 
>   http://www.cs.rpi.edu/courses/spring03/dci/actor-semantics.pdf
> 

Erm, wow! A little too much "convex, must and may collapsing in
the presence of fairness" for my palate :-)

I soldiered on "in the presence of send" (refer to a previous mail)
to the point where I could vaguely imagine an MPL implementation of their
actor language. But that is where my capabilities hit a flat-spot.

I can appreciate the desire to found "actors" in a theory. There is
also (probably) a healthy proportion of "experts" around RDBMS's that
know little about set theory. I will (rather blindly ;-) assume that
one day all "inherited thread-type" systems will be validated using
some form of actor algebra.

Agree with everything said about platform-independence.

Cheers,
Scott