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

[Miles Fidelman]

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