[erlang-questions] Erlang is *not* a implementation of the Actor model Re: Go vs Erlang for distribution
Wed Jun 25 18:29:10 CEST 2014
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Miles Fidelman <>
> On Wednesday 25 June 2014 00:09:35 Robert Virding wrote:
>>> I think it is very lucky that we weren't interested in, or worried about,
>>> the theoretical aspects, or that we had heard about the actor model. If
>>> had we would probably still be discussing whether we were doing the actor
>>> model and which parts of it, or where we differed and how important that
>>> was? Or should we differ and maybe we should drop the differences to we
>>> would comply, etc ... :-)
>>> We were trying to solve *THE* problem and this was the best solution we
>>> could come with. It was purely pragmatic. We definitely took ideas from
>>> other inputs but not from the Actor model.
>> Robert, I know it's probably documented somewhere, but...
> 1. what do (did) you see as "*THE* problem" you were trying to solve at
> the time
Joe here - I'll dive in with a reply:
Bjarne Däckers thesis has a good outline of the problem the thesis is
This blog has a good summary of Bjarnes thesis
> 2. what sources DID you draw from (other than the predecessor languages at
> Ericsson), are there any that you'd consider primary influences?
Prolog and Smalltalk in equal measure. Pattern matching and syntax was
inspired by Prolog. Messaging from Smalltalk. We took a few ideas on
guarded commands from
The message queues were largely inspired by SDL and occam (SDL has a
graphic notation very similar to selective receive)
Links were invented by Mike Williams and based on the idea of a C-wire (a
form of electrical circuit breaker).
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions