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

Miles Fidelman mfidelman@REDACTED
Thu Jun 26 03:29:54 CEST 2014

Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> I've been reading the ActoScript paper, and am quite confused.
> The title of the paper is
> 	ActorScript(TM)
> 	extension of C#, Java, Objective C, JavaScript,
> 	and System Verilog
> 	using
> 	iAdaptive(TM) concurrency
> 	for
> 	antiCloud(TM) privacy and security
> So the title says it's an extension of several other languages
> (one of which is notorious for not having any concurrency).
> But then what the paper describes is variant of the actor
> language from long long ago making use of quirky Unicode
> characters, talking about an ActorScript-specific IDE, and
> making strong claims of efficiency.  The Tutorial
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.2748v20.pdf uses slightly different
> syntax.
> So what _is_ it?  Is there such a thing as an ActorScript
> implementation I could download or buy?  ActorScript,
Probably better addressed to Carl Hewitt :-)

For what it's worth - after PLANNER, I've been more a fan of his 
conceptual models than his implementations. The Actor stuff was 
brilliant, and I remember some interesting conversations from my student 
days at MIT (40 years ago, mind you) - but every time he releases some 
kind of implementation, it confuses the heck out of me.

Miles Fidelman

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list