Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Looking back on Swift 3 and ahead to Swift 4

lists.swift.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Looking back on Swift 3 and ahead to Swift 4

#61

Post by dschiptsov »

coldtea wrote: post #55
dschiptsov wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Message passing, it seems, is the basis for implementation of protocols, be it communication between objects in a hierarchy or between actors/processes in a system or nodes in a network. It is not coincidence that message passing is the core concept in the original OO paradigm and in design of fault-tolerant distributed systems. Cells do message passing too. I am not sure what is being copied here. Messages are just…

> It is not coincidence that message passing is the core concept in the original OO paradigm and in design of fault-tolerant distributed systems. Cells do message passing too. This is not about "fault-tolerant distributed systems" though, but for "performance-first" for very CPU and memory expensive programs (video and audio processing, number crunching, etc).

Joe Armstrong thinks it is.

Re: Looking back on Swift 3 and ahead to Swift 4

#62

Post by coldtea »

dschiptsov wrote: post #61
coldtea wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not coincidence that message passing is the core concept in the original OO paradigm and in design of fault-tolerant distributed systems. Cells do message passing too. This is not about "fault-tolerant distributed systems" though, but for "performance-first" for very CPU and memory expensive programs (video and audio processing, number crunching, etc).

Joe Armstrong thinks it is.

I doubt Joe Armstrong said anywhere that message passing can be as fast as shared memory for those kinds of applications.

Re: Looking back on Swift 3 and ahead to Swift 4

#63

Post by dschiptsov »

coldtea wrote: post #62
dschiptsov wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joe Armstrong thinks it is.

I doubt Joe Armstrong said anywhere that message passing can be as fast as shared memory for those kinds of applications.

He advocates "fail-fast" and "share-nothing" as fundamental principles - that's the point. With no sharing a failure of a single process affects no other, unlike threads with shared stack and state. For the same reasons Erlang is functional language with single bindings. Sharing of immutable data is OK, so message passing might be implemented using OS shared memory services.

Re: Looking back on Swift 3 and ahead to Swift 4

#64

Post by coldtea »

dschiptsov wrote: post #63
coldtea wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt Joe Armstrong said anywhere that message passing can be as fast as shared memory for those kinds of applications.

He advocates "fail-fast" and "share-nothing" as fundamental principles - that's the point. With no sharing a failure of a single process affects no other, unlike threads with shared stack and state. For the same reasons Erlang is functional language with single bindings. Sharing of immutable data is OK, so message passing might be implemented using OS shared memory services.

>He advocates "fail-fast" and "share-nothing" as fundamental principles - that's the point.

He advocates those for totally different use cases.

Re: Looking back on Swift 3 and ahead to Swift 4

#65

Post by themihai »

coldtea wrote: post #57
themihai wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. From the microsoft docs I understand that it has some limitations so most likely it won't work without some patching. Why would you use a linux subsystem instead of "native" linux anyway? It seems designed for sys admins who don't like windows (quite funny)

> It seems designed for sys admins who don't like windows (quite funny) It's designed first and foremost for developers deploying on UNIX/Linux.

I don't know what that means. Deploying on UNIX/Linux usually means uploading the code somewhere using a standard protocol (i.e. ftp ) or proprietary API. Part of that you need to execute a program so I'm wondering, what makes deploying more special than any other program?

Re: Looking back on Swift 3 and ahead to Swift 4

#66

Post by dschiptsov »

coldtea wrote: post #64
dschiptsov wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He advocates "fail-fast" and "share-nothing" as fundamental principles - that's the point. With no sharing a failure of a single process affects no other, unlike threads with shared stack and state. For the same reasons Erlang is functional language with single bindings. Sharing of immutable data is OK, so message passing might be implemented using OS shared memory services.

> He advocates "fail-fast" and "share-nothing" as fundamental principles - that's the point. He advocates those for totally different use cases.

[citation needed]
Post reply on HN