1. The article wasn't talking about "asynchronous I/O". It was talking about message-passing (actor model/message-oriented OO) as the interface.
2. Message passing isn't new, it is at least 50 years old even if you don't go further back than early Smalltalk and the Actor model.
3. The article wasn't "selling" anything, and certainly nothing new see (2). It was noting convergence from several directions on an old and somewhat misunderstood paradigm.
2. Message passing isn't new, it is at least 50 years old even if you don't go further back than early Smalltalk and the Actor model.
3. The article wasn't "selling" anything, and certainly nothing new see (2). It was noting convergence from several directions on an old and somewhat misunderstood paradigm.