Re: [friam] On LtU: Discussion of Erlang-like vs E-like concurrency model

On 2/19/12 at 15:31, [email protected] (Mark S. Miller) wrote:

>http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4453

Some of the key paragraphs were incomprehensible to me because 
of errors in English composition:

>Note that the classical actor model provides only two of these dimensions: 1*3. There is notion of step and there is notion process (actor). And there every even is processed in the single step.
>
>Erlang truthfully implement this model. And it also assumes single step even processing. There is also no work-based decomposition. The work dimension is lost from Erlang. It is also lost from all Erlang-style implementation of actor model.
>
>The proof is quite simple. It is not possible to esaly apply functional composition operators to Erlang actors. And it is possible to specify which events actor receives, but is not hard to specify specify which are directly or indirectly produced by the actor. So it is asynchronous version of “go to” mess of synchronous code.
>

I assume that every use of the word "even" should be read as "event".

I assume that "esaly" should be "easily".

The second to last sentence, starting, "And it is possible to 
specify..." completely eludes me.

If I knew the LtU jargon better, I might be able to make a stab 
at parsing that sentence.

Cheers - Bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        |Security, like correctness, is| Periwinkle
(408)356-8506      |not an add-on feature. - Attr-| 16345 
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com |ibuted to Andrew Tanenbaum    | Los Gatos, 
CA 95032


_______________________________________________
e-lang mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang