[erlang-questions] Erlang is *not* a implementation of the Actor model Re: Go vs Erlang for distribution

Peer Stritzinger peerst@REDACTED
Tue Jun 24 13:54:49 CEST 2014

On 2014-06-23 22:14:28 +0000, Miles Fidelman said:

> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>> Generally Erlang implements something that "solves the problem", wheras
>>> actors are just a theoretical construct.
>> well yes the Actor model stuff was/is intended to be a foundational
>> thing to build on top of. so when you say "theoretical construct" in a
>> way it would be taken as a compliment, not an insult ;-)
>> so i expect from Hewlitt et. al.'s perspective one would want to
>> implement Erlang on top of actors. :-)
>> _______________________________________________
> Seems to me that the core of the actor model is shared-nothing, message
> passing concurrency.  Yes there are some fine differences between the
> full model as defined by Hewitt (and implemented by him in some cases)
> and Erlang - but that seems to get into the world of implementation details.

How is having a quite different semantics being a "implementation detail".

But I should probably give up, the "Erlang is a implementation of the 
Actor model" meme seems to be stronger than unimportant details than 


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list