On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com> wrote:

> > > > on p. 43/44 i believe it is claimed that one
> > > > cannot do CSP without pure functional
> > > > programming.
> > >
> > > (p ⇒ q) ⇏ (¬p ⇒ ¬q)
> > >
> > >
> > That's interesting because pure functional programming doesn't exist at
> all
> > in the strictest sense on a computer.  One MUST be able to cause side
> > effects during computation or your CPU will just get hot... if even that.
>
> i read the slides as contrasts, not as
> logical conjunctions.
>
> i still don't understand the claim that message passing
> requires "thousands of message protocols"
> and can't do syncronization.
>
>
I also don't get that. What was meant by his usage of "protocol".  Erlang
uses only a handful of patterns that work really well for interaction in
each subsystem.  If they think of messaging and protocols in a smalltalky
way, then each class has a protocol of messages (methods) that must be
implemented, but I don't get why that's bad.  It's called an API.

I mean HTTP has a small protocol, but if you count all the things you can do
with REST, then it looks like a lot more.

Dave


> - erik
>
>