zlacker

>>kioku+(OP)
Please change the title to the original, "Actors: A Model Of Concurrent Computation In Distributed Systems".

I'm not normally a stickler for HN's rule about title preservation, but in this case the "in distributed systems" part is crucial, because IMO the urge to use both the actor model (and its relative, CSP) in non-distributed systems solely in order to achieve concurrency has been a massive boondoggle and a huge dead end. Which is to say, if you're within a single process, what you want is structured concurrency ( https://vorpus.org/blog/notes-on-structured-concurrency-or-g... ), not the unstructured concurrency that is inherent to a distributed system.

>>kibwen+4d
> both the actor model (and its relative, CSP) in non-distributed systems solely in order to achieve concurrency has been a massive boondoggle and a huge dead end.

Why is that so?

>>galaxy+hm
Well, lots of people have tried it and spent a lot of money on it and don't seem to have derived any benefit from doing so.

>>lmm+Yr
Actors can be made to do structured concurrency as long as you allow actors to wait for responses from other actors, and implement hierarchy so if an actor dies , its children do as well. And that’s how I use them! So I have to say the OP is just ignorant of how actors are used in practice.

>>brabel+f01
To adapt the analogy from the link in the root comment, this is akin to saying "`goto` can be made to do structured programming as long as you strictly ensure that the control flow graph is reducible". Which is to say, it is a true statement that manages to miss the point: the power of both structured programming and structured concurrency comes from defining new primitives that fundamentally do the right thing and don't even give you the option to do the wrong thing, thus producing a more reliable system. There's no "as long as you...", it just works.