Overall this looks to me like it is replicating functionality that already exists in the language, but his overuse -- and misuse -- of technical terms makes for a very confusing read.
I mean, what he's calling "receptors" I would be calling "event handlers"; as evidenced by his heartbeat example, where again I'm not seeing anything being done that warrants the presence of or even uses a library! I mean, I'm not the C#'est programmer out there as i consider .NET a technological dead end.
What he calls accumulated carriers I know as a FIFO message stack. What he's doing with multiple "receptors" I learned as multi-recipient messaging.
... all things I was doing three and a half decades ago in assembler and didn't need some goofy library to make happen. That his code examples on their own seem to be as large as I'd have without the library makes me question just what it is he's doing; much less why such lofty techno-babble is being thrown at it.
I could swear I've seen this before, or something very much like it where the guy abused the word "semantic" in reference to something that had absolutely nothing to do with semantics, to the point the word semantic was semantically used so many semantic times on his semantic page it was semantically ridiculous.
Oh hey, this guy does talk about "semantic meaning", and again in a situation where there are no predefined meanings so the terminology doesn't even apply. There's a reason I don't refer to how I use classes and ID's as being "semantic" even if it follows the same philosophy of saying what things are, not what I want them to look like. The UA has no clue what any of it means as there's no predefined spec for it to follow on them.
Reading the whole thing, I cannot quite fathom what the point of it is either, apart from taking something simple and making it as hard as possible to accomplish. In that way, I'd be more tempted to call whatever this is a "framework" instead of a "library" since that's usually the distinction. Libraries are just sets of helpful functions. Frameworks take the simple, make it LOOK simpler whilst making the actual task harder to accomplish resulting in more work.
OH WOW, it is the same guy... this was the article that on some other forums not that long ago everyone was scratching their heads then eventually pointing and laughing at.
codeproject.com/Articles/1012650/Distributed-Sema…
Was it here we were making fun of that one? CodingForums maybe? I forget. Pretty much everyone was sitting around ripping it to shreds whilst trying to figure out just what in the blazes it was he was even up to. Hmm, can't even find the thread now on any of the forums I frequent, strange...
I mean, I have a website that's about actual semantics in markup, and I don't use the word that many times on one page. I remember someone pointed out that he used the term 270 times on that one page, working out to something like once for every three lines of content plaintext.
So I've seen this guys stuff before -- nothing he does and nothing he posts on that site seems to make even a glimmer of sense to any programmer I know. He uses his own terms for things and doesn't seem to actually be able to explain what's so "semantic" about what he's doing.
He throws around words like semantic, membrane, receptor, carrier, and so forth when I actually doubt he grasps the actual meaning of any of those terms.
Maybe we could flag him down somehow to try and explain all this stuff, because I've been programming for four decades and everything on his site is gibberish for me.
I mean, as I said I'm not the sharpest at C#, but I know the words, I know what they mean, I can mostly digest his code, but reading his accompanying text feels more like the old "In Living Color' Damon Wayans skits where he played "Oswald Bates"
I mean, really the more I read of his site, the more I keep thinking...
Wow. That's another one of those articles (and documentations), which requires you to be immersed deeply (part of some cult?) in order to just understand the first thing. Not a good way to get new developers into using your framework. Also, they seem to value 1:1 (hidden) conversation over public discussions. Well. I skipped the article and went to the GitHub repo. There it reads that
So I think that it's just an abstraction over a finite state machine, which you can scale on distributed systems. It uses a lot of fancy terms, and seems overly complicated for just that, so I personally wouldn't touch it.
I may be completely wrong though. Hard to say. You might want to try writing an issue asking them to explain what HOPE does "like I was 5". It's a question they need to come back to Earth, imho :)