The animation on the Syndicated Actors home page [0] does a pretty good job of showing the difference, I think. Goblins is much more similar to the classic actor model shown at the beginning of the animation. The "syndicated" part, as far as I understand, relates to things like eventually consistent state sync being built-in as primitives. In Goblins, we provide the actor model (actually the vat model [1] like the E language) which can be used to build eventually consistent constructs on top. Recently we prototyped this using multi-user chat as a familiar example. [2]
My 5 minute read is that the divergences are primarily in the communication model and in transactions:
- the SAM coordinates through the dataspace, whereas Goblins is focused on ("point-to-point") message passing
- SAM (as presented) doesn't contain a transactional semantics -- e.g. turns are atomic, and there's no rollback mechanism (I haven't been up to speed on recent work, I do wonder if this could be designed into SAM)
Yeah those interested in Wasm topics might find https://spritely.institute/hoot/ interesting. It's not only a Scheme compiler but a full Wasm toolchain available as a library.
That's right! We are developing our own stack at Spritely but OCapN is a protocol to be implemented for any and all programming languages so we can have interoperable capability security over the network. Besides our Scheme implementation, there are JavaScript and Dart implementations in active development currently with hopefully many more to follow.
Interesting.
I looked through the docs and couldn't find an FAQ or anything that would answer my question of why Spritely decided to develop Goblins. Is there a doc for that?
What's its differentiation from something like Erlang, or is it just me missing the point, and comparing apples with bicycles?
We should have a FAQ! We get the Erlang question a lot. In short, Erlang actors are not capabilities because processes can be enumerated in Erlang. Capabilities require that the actors/processes have unforgeable/unguessable private addresses.
I still don't really understand what it's for, despite that it sounds interesting and gets linked here from time to time
but I think the difference is the "distributed" part, where I think they mean distributed over untrusted networks as opposed to distributed over nodes in a private cluster
> Could dataspaces be a suitable system layer foundation, perhaps replacing software like systemd and D-Bus?
The animation and this statement with clear practical usage got me interested. Is there active work going on in this area? I'd like to see how that interacts.
How does this model compare to the syndicated actor model of Tony Garnock-Jones?
(which, as far as I can tell, also supports capabilities and caveats for security)
Neat work!
The animation on the Syndicated Actors home page [0] does a pretty good job of showing the difference, I think. Goblins is much more similar to the classic actor model shown at the beginning of the animation. The "syndicated" part, as far as I understand, relates to things like eventually consistent state sync being built-in as primitives. In Goblins, we provide the actor model (actually the vat model [1] like the E language) which can be used to build eventually consistent constructs on top. Recently we prototyped this using multi-user chat as a familiar example. [2]
[0] https://syndicate-lang.org/
[1] https://files.spritely.institute/docs/guile-goblins/0.17.0/T...
[2] https://spritely.institute/news/composing-capability-securit...
Thank you, very helpful!
My 5 minute read is that the divergences are primarily in the communication model and in transactions:
- the SAM coordinates through the dataspace, whereas Goblins is focused on ("point-to-point") message passing
- SAM (as presented) doesn't contain a transactional semantics -- e.g. turns are atomic, and there's no rollback mechanism (I haven't been up to speed on recent work, I do wonder if this could be designed into SAM)
They also have a scheme to webassembly transpiler called Hoot. They do crazy interesting work!
Yeah those interested in Wasm topics might find https://spritely.institute/hoot/ interesting. It's not only a Scheme compiler but a full Wasm toolchain available as a library.
Spritely develops very interesting, high-level software.
Feels like there's a protocol missing: one that can be used by all parts of a persistent computing system without constraining the system as a whole
The protocol is OCapN
http://ocapn.org/
That's right! We are developing our own stack at Spritely but OCapN is a protocol to be implemented for any and all programming languages so we can have interoperable capability security over the network. Besides our Scheme implementation, there are JavaScript and Dart implementations in active development currently with hopefully many more to follow.
Interesting. I looked through the docs and couldn't find an FAQ or anything that would answer my question of why Spritely decided to develop Goblins. Is there a doc for that? What's its differentiation from something like Erlang, or is it just me missing the point, and comparing apples with bicycles?
We should have a FAQ! We get the Erlang question a lot. In short, Erlang actors are not capabilities because processes can be enumerated in Erlang. Capabilities require that the actors/processes have unforgeable/unguessable private addresses.
Thanks. That was helpful.
I still don't really understand what it's for, despite that it sounds interesting and gets linked here from time to time
but I think the difference is the "distributed" part, where I think they mean distributed over untrusted networks as opposed to distributed over nodes in a private cluster
> Could dataspaces be a suitable system layer foundation, perhaps replacing software like systemd and D-Bus?
The animation and this statement with clear practical usage got me interested. Is there active work going on in this area? I'd like to see how that interacts.
Yep! Shepherd × Goblins
https://spritely.institute/news/shepherd-goblins-update.html
https://shepherding.services/