I think the commitee should uniformly idiomize the functor fmap and the monad bind functional names across the standard. The let_value should be and_then like in and . I understand that it might too haskell-mimic somewheat but it's less burden to pick up and more useful in the big picture.
Its a shame that academia and the tech press do not talk about the concept of Actors, which naturally expresses concurrency and communication in a much simpler way to comprehend. We have seen so many complex solutions, yet the simpler abstraction (Actors) seems to be ignored by so many very experienced engineers. There are C++ Actor libraries, but nothing standardised. Maybe in C++4z.
Also, doesn't Actors seem much more reasonable than senders and receivers for literally _all_ the examples I see, of senders/receivers in c++ where they talk about async? All the talks of channels, show examples of where the actual readers somewhere will block - which isn't solving async problems, it's solving processing things in batches-problems, where a single consumer consumes results, which is a fairly trivial task to solve ad hoc, where as actors actually are more geared towards a completely async system where there is no "main thread" as it were, no?
These are just simple examples. You do not need to block necessarily unless you need that value. I think this library is meant as a low level runtime to build other things on. As such, it provides the building blocks. Actors seem to me like more comfortable to use but also more intrusive and need more runtime to run, like boxes and stuff like that. Nothing would prevent you to build an actor run-time on top of these things.
I think the commitee should uniformly idiomize the functor fmap and the monad bind functional names across the standard. The let_value should be and_then like in and . I understand that it might too haskell-mimic somewheat but it's less burden to pick up and more useful in the big picture.
Its a shame that academia and the tech press do not talk about the concept of Actors, which naturally expresses concurrency and communication in a much simpler way to comprehend. We have seen so many complex solutions, yet the simpler abstraction (Actors) seems to be ignored by so many very experienced engineers. There are C++ Actor libraries, but nothing standardised. Maybe in C++4z.
Also, doesn't Actors seem much more reasonable than senders and receivers for literally _all_ the examples I see, of senders/receivers in c++ where they talk about async? All the talks of channels, show examples of where the actual readers somewhere will block - which isn't solving async problems, it's solving processing things in batches-problems, where a single consumer consumes results, which is a fairly trivial task to solve ad hoc, where as actors actually are more geared towards a completely async system where there is no "main thread" as it were, no?
These are just simple examples. You do not need to block necessarily unless you need that value. I think this library is meant as a low level runtime to build other things on. As such, it provides the building blocks. Actors seem to me like more comfortable to use but also more intrusive and need more runtime to run, like boxes and stuff like that. Nothing would prevent you to build an actor run-time on top of these things.
wow javascript's async await really caught on huh
so disappointed with ugly free function syntax... wtf are they doing this? member fns make code nicely left to right readable.