[erlang-questions] Erlang is *not* a implementation of the Actor model Re: Go vs Erlang for distribution
Mon Jun 23 04:22:36 CEST 2014
> In many ways an Erlang system does have an OS feeling about it. At least
I think so.
I think so, too:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Robert Virding <rvirding@REDACTED> wrote:
> And of course OSes which embody a lot of the ideas we were after, but in
> such a way that they were/are way to heavy for what we were after. In many
> ways an Erlang system does have an OS feeling about it. At least I think so.
> On 23 June 2014 02:27, Robert Virding <rvirding@REDACTED> wrote:
>> We had never heard of the actor model, at least I hadn't. We had other
>> inputs, amongst others Eripascal which an internal Ericsson version of
>> Pascal which had processes and messages.
>> Hewitt got a lot of things wrong in his description of Erlang.
>> On 22 June 2014 23:58, Peer Stritzinger <peerst@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> On 2014-06-22 02:07:12 +0000, Miles Fidelman said:
>>>> I see Erlang as an implementation of the Actor model, a la Carl Hewitt -
>>> This crops up again and again but still isn't true.
>>> Erlang does *not* implement Actors but processes with links/monitors
>>> mailboxes and messages, which are not equivalent to actors.
>>> Processes: sequence of function calls interspresed with (selective)
>>> receives that pick out someting out of the mailbox.
>>> Actor: has to handle every message immediately, the actions a message
>>> triggers are happening concurrently, nothing longer running or sequential
>>> Hewitt says himself that Erlang does not implement Actors:
>>> He picks on different things like "silent process failure" instead of
>>> exceptions (which don't make much sense for somone familiar with Erlang)
>>> and that Actors seem to be garbage collected if they are "unneded" probably
>>> no longer referenced from the outside and Erlang needs "internal
>>> Hewitt writes mostly what he finds lacking but on the other hand I find
>>> the process with mailbox, selective receive and links/monitors (not ver
>>> silent ;-) more powerful that simple Actors.
>>> Also as aside from what I've heard Erlangs creators didn't look at
>>> Actors when creating.
>>> -- Peer
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions