Talk:Actor model implementation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a stub for an article that is about to be written as per suggestion in the discussion page of Actor model. In the meantime please feel free to begin.
Contents |
[edit] Why this article exists now
This article exists because Actor model was being vandalized by the insertion of specialized discussion that properly belongs in this article.--Carl Hewitt 20:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Scheme?
Ableman and Sussman attempting to implement the Actor model as Scheme, especially w/r/t the meta-circular eval, doesn't even get an honorable mention here?
- The problem with Scheme, it seems to me, is that it acts more like "one big Actor" rather than communications between actors; the functions -- named or anonymous -- are just messages. 71.246.25.169 10:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Scheme seems to avoid the problem of Namespace as defined by Hans Reiser. I believe Actors are defined by their namespaces, or in FORTH parlance, by their word dictionaries (ala metacompilers). (FORTH also assumes an eval, with the : syntax convention.)
[edit] FORTH?
What is the relevance of the FORTH to the actor model?
There is link but no explanation.
[edit] Erlang?
Just out of curiousity, would Erlang be considered an actual implementation of the Actor model? If not, why not? 124.107.146.20 (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
