Content deleted Content added
→Material deleted from "Carl Hewitt, the Actor model, and the birth of Scheme": The inventos wanted to generalize the lambda calculus using serialized Actors. |
Pi Delport (talk | contribs) →Material deleted from "Carl Hewitt, the Actor model, and the birth of Scheme": please, give this a rest |
||
Line 35:
:::The inventors wanted to generalize the lambda calculus using serialized Actors.[[Special:Contributions/171.66.109.180|171.66.109.180]] ([[User talk:171.66.109.180|talk]]) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
::: Look, you're missing the point. '''''It does not matter at all''''' what Hewitt (or anyone else) thinks about first-class continuations versus actor message passing: this article is simply not concerned with their relative merits.
::: If you think that the thrust of Sussman and Steele's work was that actors were just the lambda calculus in disguise, you must be grossly misreading or misunderstanding it. They were very explicit about Scheme not attempting to implement the full actor model, and carefully point out the exception of cells and serializers, as I pointed out above. They also clearly explain how ''"side effects, multiprocessing, and synchronization of processes'' [...]'' are very hard, if not impossible, to model using the substitution semantics of the lambda calculus, but'' [are] ''easily incorporated in other semantic models, including the environment interpreter and, perhaps more notably, the ACTORS model."''
::: I cannot imagine how you could read this and conclude that they're implying actors and lambda calculus are the same. Please, give this a rest.
::: <span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>([[User talk:Piet Delport|talk]]) 2009-11-03 11:32</small></span>
The quotation deleted from the article published in [http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3330 ''ActorScript(TM): Industrial strength integration of local and nonlocal concurrency for Client-cloud Computing'' ArXiv 0907.3330 ] is as follows:
| |||