And what you’re saying is like saying that learning every distinct discipline is a unique experience. All knowledge was discovered by humans (even if by discovering it from nature), and all pedagogy addresses the same type(s) of brains. All disciplines contend with the same universal laws of physics. There is a lot less difference than people think between learning the flute and learning woodworking, even though the flautist may be much more discouraged from bringing their own hand-made gadgets to work.
But yes, many solutions are isomorphic because they are dealing with the same information on the same Turing machine. That doesn’t mean it’s stupid to bring it up, but it can mean that there’s a less upside to switching solutions than people think.
The Chesterton’s Fence here though is that you can implement the Actor Model without the BEAM’s process isolation, and the supervisor tree that goes with it. If you insist on doing so, which several languages have, then the finer distinctions between CSP and Actor pale in comparison to the BEAM.
But yes, many solutions are isomorphic because they are dealing with the same information on the same Turing machine. That doesn’t mean it’s stupid to bring it up, but it can mean that there’s a less upside to switching solutions than people think.
The Chesterton’s Fence here though is that you can implement the Actor Model without the BEAM’s process isolation, and the supervisor tree that goes with it. If you insist on doing so, which several languages have, then the finer distinctions between CSP and Actor pale in comparison to the BEAM.