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

[Miles Fidelman]

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.

Now whether any of that influenced Erlang, or was a case of parallel 
invention, is a different question.

Miles Fidelman


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