Zalastax

Is there not full or at least partial overlap between the 44 % and the 26 %? Which would mean not 70 % but some smaller number?

Interesting! I suppose one could prepare for that by having a second profile with just a few questions solved?

You may find my MsC thesis, link in profile, interesting! If I remember my writing correctly, I have similar reflections on CSP.

My view on 2 is that you get into a quite different mindset when you program actors, compared to objects. For starters, since each actor is scheduled separately, it becomes routine to not assume too much about the internal state of the actor. So you won't see many getters + setters in Erlang, for example. You also need to structure your program to not communicate unnecessarily, since communication may fail and requires you to wait for the other actor to reply. This makes you to think about what state should belong to which actor. It is quite subtle and is best seen by experiencing it, but I think the programs turn out quite different, and in my view better. Actors are not perfect for everything but to me they are what object oriented programming should have been.

Natural body of water!

Totally agree. I think that locality is what separates true functional programming from languages where some of functional programming features have been added on top. Immutability and types that track effects are means of achieving locality.

Sure, but my point still stands: figuring this out doesn't require arcane knowledge, contrary to what was suggested. The code inside the expression looks like standard JS. The downvotes and your reply suggests I should have communicated more clearly.

But that's not how one should read "that is". The author should have used "e.g." here, no question. Using "i.e." would imply that there exists only one nondeterministic function in MySQL, which is not the case.