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