In a wide ranging discussion, there were some fundamental disagreements among the panelists as follows:<p>I disagreed with Tony Hoare about using synchronous communication as the primitive because it is too slow for both IoT and many-core chips. Instead, the primitive for communication should be <i>asynchronous sending and receiving</i>, from which more complex protocols can be constructed.<p>Also, I disagreed with Tony about sequential actions (using ";") as being foundational. Instead, <i>concurrent actions</i> are foundational for digital systems as follows:<p><pre><code> * Receipt of a communication activated sending other communications
* An Actor received one communication before it received another communication
</code></pre>
Consequently, a computation is a partial order of causality. Tony and I did agree that tooling is needed for navigating the partial order. We just disagreed about whether sequential actions (using ";") are foundational.<p>Furthermore, class hierarchies are <i>not</i> a suitable foundation for <i>Scalable Intelligent Systems</i>. <i>Interfaces</i> instead of subclassing should be used for IoT communication. Also, entities and descriptions in large ontologies do not fit in an object class hierarchy, e.g., Java and C++. Subclassing is <i>not secure</i> because it allows a subclass to <i>impersonate</i> a superclass.<p>I disagreed with Joe Armstrong about requiring use of external mailboxes because they are <i>inefficient in both space and time</i>. Instead of <i>requiring</i> an external mailbox for each Actor, buffering/reordering/scheduling should be performed <i>inside</i> an Actor as required.<p>Of course, Tony and Joe made other great points with which we agree entirely.