Remember that Go vs D MQTT thing and how we wondered about dmd vs gdc?

[Russel Winder]

On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 23:18 +0000, Bienlein wrote:
[…]
> Would be awesome if D got some kind of CSP. I used to reproduce 
[…]
> to have little lock contention. With CSP you only have to fix the 
> way you deal with some channel or introduce some other channel. 
> CSP is truly a step ahead IMHO.

Actors, dataflow and CSP are three different models of using processes
and message passing. They are applicable in different situations.
Clearly dataflow and CSP are closer to each other than either to actors.
Go has chosen to focus only on CSP (sort of, see previous emails) and
ignore dataflow and actors at the language level. This may be an error.
In GPars, we have chosen to keep all three distinct and implemented
separately. This has given a clear performance benefit over implementing
one as the base and the others on top.

And don't forget data parallelism, but std.parallelism already provides
good stuff in that department for D — though it could do with some new
love.

I guess D could be said to have actors already using spawn and the
message queue.

Dataflow is though where "Big Data" is going. There are commercial
offerings in the JVM space and they are making huge profits on
licencing, simply because the frameworks work. 

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140308/19b4fe62/attachment.sig>