<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div><br></div><div><br>Le 18 sept. 2017 à 07:59, Pierre Habouzit <<a href="mailto:phabouzit@apple.com">phabouzit@apple.com</a>> a écrit :<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 17, 2017, at 5:00 AM, Benjamin G via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">I've read Chris Lattner proposal on concurrency, and if i'm correct, the proposal is to start implementing async / await mechanism first, then other more evolved mechanisms (such as actors) on top later.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My question after reading the many conversations (and confusion) around the execution order of async / await on the mailing list is this : </div><div class="">Isn't the actor model a more "elementary" concurrency model than async / await, and so, from a theoretical point of view, wouldn't it make more sense to implement it first as a layer to build future other concurrency mechanisms on top ?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'm putting emphasis on the "theoretical" aspect of my question, because i'm 100% certain that if Mr Lattner decided to go this path, it's because it makes more sense from an implementation point of view. </div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Actors is a way higher level construct than async/await.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>async/await is IMO an interesting low level construct that explains to the language where your execution flow requires to be broken in two (what is syntactically before and after the "await") to wait for some event before the second half can be done.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Unlike Actors, it doesn't try to explain what/how/... this is done, which makes it lower level.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's also how i first thought about it, but the more i digg the subject ( especially after viewing <a href="https://youtu.be/7erJ1DV_Tlo">https://youtu.be/7erJ1DV_Tlo</a>), the more i understand actors as a fundamental unit of computation (addressable, with a state), and not a whole framework.</div><div><br></div><div>all the questions i see raised with async/await ( queue hoping, timeouts, error handling, ressource allocation, etc) simply aren't there with actors, because imho, the model is conceptually simpler ( and thus a saner basis for building concurrency).</div><div><br></div><div>I started thinking about what, in the "everything's an actor" model, async/await would mean if called from within an actor and it seems like it would mean that once the await call is made, all the messages sent to that actor are blocked until the response from that call is received ( which is dangerous if the message comes from the network, but not that much when running in the same computer). That seemed interesting but i stopped there because i wanted to have the opinion of more qualified people first.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Pierre</div><br class=""></div></blockquote></body></html>