Subject: Re: [boost] Is there any interest in a library for actor programming?
From: james (james_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-11 17:31:16
On 11/06/2013 13:03, Brandon Kohn wrote:
> On 6/10/2013 4:30 PM, james wrote:
>> I don't think that the limited correctness you get from that is very
>> useful in a concurrent system.
> Why not? I think the development crews that worked on the mars orbiter
> mission which failed would beg to differ.
Personal experience? Its a question of whether you are building and
releasing all components at once, and whether they will all be built in
the same team, and with the same technology.
I have found systems with soft data structures to be more easily
enhanced than ones built from IDL, and have not had many problems from
mismatched syntaxes. Rigid syntax (whether from IDL, or some XML form
check) always seem to end up subverted with additional key/value data or
(even worse) data embedded into 'structured comments'. There's a reason
for that and it all goes back to schema evolution, and that's why
systems like protobuf tend to sacrifice clean syntax for extensibility..
The critical size for a homogeneous system that must be built and
released from the same sources to guarantee wire compatibility seems to
be quite small in practice.