Content deleted Content added
The Actor model was addressing two interrelated issues: control structure and message order arrival. Unfortunately, Scheme did not successfully address either issue. |
On one hand, Scheme incorporated re-invocable continuations that go beyond Actor message passing. On the other hand, Scheme did not provide for message arrival order that is part of Actors. |
||
Line 69:
::There were two controversies: (1) the usefulness of hairy control structure and (2) whether Actors were just the lambda calculus. [Sussman and Steele 2005] went around in circles about these issues contradicting itself at multiple points. Hewitt, Hayes, etc. published criticism of hairy control structure. So incorporating re-invocable continuations in Scheme was certainly perpetuating the controversy. The <code>START!PROCESS</code>, <code>STOP!PROCESS</code> and <code>EVALUATE!UNINTERRUPTABLY</code> primitives were part Sussman and Steele's reductionist attempt to address the message arrival order issue. It is unclear where these primitives fit into their summarizing claim at the end of their paper that “we discovered that the 'Actors' and the lambda expressions were identical in implementation.” [[Special:Contributions/76.254.235.105|76.254.235.105]] ([[User talk:76.254.235.105|talk]]) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems very strange. On one hand, Scheme incorporated re-invocable continuations that go beyond Actor message passing. On the other hand, Scheme did not provide for message arrival order that is part of Actor message passing. [[Special:Contributions/68.170.176.166|68.170.176.166]] ([[User talk:68.170.176.166|talk]]) 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |||