Content deleted Content added
Pi Delport (talk | contribs) m →Material deleted from "Carl Hewitt, the Actor model, and the birth of Scheme": restore original indentation |
Pi Delport (talk | contribs) →Material deleted from "Carl Hewitt, the Actor model, and the birth of Scheme": I can only repeat what has already been said. |
||
Line 54:
: [Sussman and Steele 1975] mistakenly concluded “we discovered that the 'Actors' and the lambda expressions were identical in implementation.” The actual situation is that the lambda calculus is capable of expressing some kinds of sequential and parallel control structures but, in general, not the concurrency expressed in the Actor model. On the other hand, the Actor model is capable of expressing everything in the lambda calculus and more.
[[Special:Contributions/76.254.235.105|76.254.235.105]] ([[User talk:76.254.235.105|talk]]) 18:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
: I can only repeat what has already been said.
:* You keep alleging the existence of a controversy, that Sussman and Sussman claimed that actors were "lambda calculus in disguise" (and later "backed off" from this in later publications), when in reality, from the very first Scheme memo, they were very clear and specific about the lambda calculus's shortcomings compared to the actor model, in contradiction to your claim.
:* You keep pointing out one or other feature of Scheme that does not resemble the actor model, completely ignoring the fact that ''they were never intended to''.
:*# The lack of cell and serializer actors, as discussed above, was intentional and explicitly noted.
:*# The capturing of first-class [[continuation]]s was and still is very widely recognized as useful, and certainly not a case of "perpetuating the controversy" as you put it.
:*# The original multiprocessing primitives (<code>START!PROCESS</code>, <code>STOP!PROCESS</code> and <code>EVALUATE!UNINTERRUPTABLY</code>) had nothing to do with the actor model or its concurrency model, but were instead more or less accidental features of the original interpreter (and by the authors' own later description "flat-out wrong").
: I don't know what point you're trying to make with ActorScript paper quote, as it either accidentally or deliberately misquotes AIM-349 without necessary context: the attempted correction, that lambda calculus cannot model the concurrency expressed in the actor model, is in fact exactly what AIM-349 states itself!
: As a last point: if you truly care about this topic, '''[[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|please consider registering accounts]]''' , as it is difficult to hold a conversation with an unknown number of anonymous parties.
: <span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>([[User talk:Piet Delport|talk]]) 2009-11-05 21:51</small></span>
| |||