Talk:Actor model

Archives
Archive 1 (6 July 2005 - 4 April 2007) Archive 2 (4 April 2007 - 15 May 2012)

Actor libraries and frameworks - addition

Perhaps we should add Functional Java (http://functionaljava.org/) to the list of Actor libraries and frameworks. It's a java framework which enables functional-style programming and an Actor implementation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.238.233 (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is JAVACT which is a Java library for programming concurrent, distributed and mobile agent-based applications. See: http://javact.org/JavAct.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.115.28.2 (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, CL-MUPROC for Common lisp (http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-muproc/) sould be added (under BSD License) --93.72.254.137 (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 July 2012

libcppa was released in version 0.2.1 two days ago (2012-07-02). Furthermore, reference [43] should imo link to the Git Tags (https://github.com/Neverlord/libcppa/tags) rather than to the Git Commits.

Stickman hero (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Mdann52 (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2012

Perhaps you can add a reference to STAGE implementation of the actor model in python from Imperial College of London - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5071380&tag=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fikovnik (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2012

Akka 2.0.2 was released on June 12 2012.

RussAbbott (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Link to german version

Hi,

today I have finished an article about the actor model in the German Wikipedia. Can you please place to link to the version? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_Model

Best regards,

--Stephan.rehfeld (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

put in standard reference to published literature + the most referenced tutorial video

• Carl Hewitt. "Actor Model of Computation: Scalable Robust Information Systems" Proceedings of Inconsistency Robustness 2011. [1] Also [2]
• Hewitt, Meijer and Szyperski: The Actor Model (everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask) Microsoft Channel 9. April 9, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.104.206 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Section titles should accurately reflect subject matter. So I have changed the title to reflect the content below.50.131.244.2 (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Although Carl Hewitt was apparently banned from Wikipedia, to me the overall article *still* reads like the typical "Actor model is above everything" propoganda he spams everywhere he appears (see e.g. his self-post at Lambda the Ultimate: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4140 and the subsequent discussions.)

Hewitt published an account of his Wikipedia misadventures in Corruption of Wikipedia. 171.65.249.4 (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

E.g. most of the sub-sections of "Message-passing semantics" contain almost no reasonable references and are just some rephrasings of statements made by Carl Hewitt, not some things proven / stated by other academics.

I'd much rather see NOTHING on this page than have a lot of statements which are highly dubious and just confuse me.

I also fail to understand how can self-published things by Carl Hewitt can be considered valid references? Has anyone even looked at those papers (i.e. papers "published" by Carl Hewitt after the 2000)? They are mostly total rubbish. E.g. some claim to disprove central theorems of mathemathical logic, which is beyond ridiculous.

--humble_reader 146.50.236.226 (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is famous for anonymous ad hominem attacks on academic experts. A hallmark of such attacks is a complete lack of fact or subject argumentation. 12.199.206.2 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I don't understand why you are changing titles of posts made by others.

Second, sorry for using strongs words, but this is not an ad-hominem attack on Carl Hewitt. This is about the standard scientific process and the usual guidelines by which Wikipedia is being run, e.g. preventing things like citing self-publications. (WP:V#SELF). --humble_reader 77.172.242.47 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The section title has been changed in order to accurately reflect its content.

The standard scientific process is for critics to publish criticism of other scientists under their own name instead of hiding behind anonymity. At the Lambda the Ultimate Forum that you complained about, you are required to use your real name :-)

If you had read Professor Hewitt's homepage, you would know that he has published numerous refereed articles since 2000. There are videos on Hewitt's homepage that can help you understand the Actor Model.

PS. How is it being a student at Universiteit van Amsterdam?50.131.244.2 (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Hewitt's publications after 2000 on DBLP, I see one peer-reviewed academic paper in COIN from 2007, in which, funnily, Hewitt cites his other unpeer-review or even unpublished papers (like the 'Hewitt 2007c').

Also, right, so now we are turning this into a discussion about Carl Hewitt, which is not my concern at all. I'll leave the title as is, because presumably you will just keep reverting it anyway. --humble_reader 77.172.242.47 (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

DBLP is not very up to date :-( The important thing is to learn as much as you can. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult to improve articles because of Wikipedia Administrator censorship. So your best bet is to read the articles in the bibliography. 50.131.244.2 (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the title to something neutral. I will look at the references in a little while, and remove any that are unpublished.

One immediate question is: what is the full publication information for "Proceedings of inconsistency robustness", including the publisher? Strangely, a Google search does not turn up any information, and "robust11.org" is simply an online PDF. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The "strangely" is not so strange, when you notice the fact that it is an "institution" setup by Carl Hewitt through which he publishes his own material. I don't know how to state this without sounding sarcastic. Humble reader (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

iRobust is a *very* prestigious academic society (see the Board of Directors at the website).64.134.237.164 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

CBM, I see you edited the article by replacing some of the references with the "What is Computation?" article.

I think it can't be used as a reference for anything but philosophical arguments on what the actor model "is". (And yet even those being pretty bad ones). If you look at the discussion of the article at Lambda-the-Ultimate (which I already mentioned above), you can see how other academics are politely trying to point out the flaws of Hewitt's "formal" arguments. Moreover, the whole section on "Relationship to mathematical logic" is already flagged as needing verification, and the linked article in it -- Indeterminacy_in_concurrent_computation -- is also suggested for deletion in the Talk page of it.

If you were brave enough, you could go to Lambda the Ultimate and participate in the discussion ;-) 64.134.237.164 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason we have this whole mess simply because it is part of big self-reference cycle of Hewitt's productions. If you don't believe me, just check the facts yourselves. Initially after reading these few articles on Actor Model and it's relationship with other fields, for a while I myself believed that Hewitt found some interesting and even fundamentall relationships between Turing Completeness and etc. However, something did not feel quite right, and after taking a more careful look at this I realised that the reason his results "clash" with the rest of the theory is because none of them are formal mathematical arguments. Moreover, I have not found *any* confirmations of this in academic literature (apart from the one published by Hewitt, of course).

It will be interesting to see how your amateur opinion plays out. There will be serious discussions at Inconsistency Robustness 2014 next summer at Stanford. 64.134.237.164 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Finally, the "What is Computation?" article is a philosophical essay -- not some kind of a mathematical paper which can be used to argue about some fundamental relationship to / implications about mathematical logic. It's mathematical logic, right?

Probably the most interesting (and controversial) article is Mathematics self-proves its own consistency. Undoubtedly, it will intensively discussed at Inconsistency Robustness 2014. 64.134.237.164 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

<irony>Sure, the article seems to provoke contraversially humurous responses, so I bet there will be lots of discussion on how to explore the field of Troll Mathematical Logic.</irony> --Humble reader (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Mocking academic experts won't get you anywhere. Of course, they are divided into differing camps. You need to understand the issues being discussed. 171.65.249.4 (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would go on and just start proposing things for deletion / edit out things myself, but I feel it will be taken as some kind of an unexplained "attack", that's why I'm taking the time to point out the flawed referencing and backing up of arguments and etc. -- Humble reader (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Since I started on the "academics trying to confront Carl Hewitt's statements" theme, follow along this conversation in the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list (the FOM list is a professional academic list, read it here), where again Carl Hewitt is being subtly asked to provide any reasonable evidence about his claims, at which point the conversation dies. Obviously the normal academic ethics is not to "out" someone as being wrong, but either to ask them to provide proof or just ignore flawed claims. Luckily here we don't have to be so ethical and can actually remove the flawed claims rather than ignoring them. -- Humble reader (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the FOM list is censored. Many conversations are cut off mid-stream and continued via other forums such as Google+. 64.134.237.164 (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

<irony>Ah, indeed, FOM is censored just like Wikipedia is, right? Also, thanks, indeed the intelligent monologues of Carl Hewitt on G+ display his irrefutably correct arguments and the support from them academic society on them!</irony> -- Humble reader (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidently you were unaware that FOM is censored. (Some prominent researchers working in the Foundations of Mathematics are unhappy about the censorship.) Academics are very busy people. They document their positions and move on. 171.65.249.4 (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I made a relatively minimal edit [3]. (1) I removed the robust11.org reference, which has no publication info apart from appearing on a website for which the WHOIS information is very relevant. (2) I removed a reference to a "Middle History" paper which, according to its Arxiv page, was submitted in 2009 but has no publication info, and I was unable to find publication info anywhere else. (3) I combined two references to the "A Computable Universe" paper, so that they share the same reference details, but I removed a link from it to a webpage. This reference does appear to be published by World Scientific. The remaining reference info for it is still sufficient to verify printed the reference.

As something of a logician, you may not be aware that the action in Computer Science is in the refereed conferences (i.g. Inconsistency Robustness 2011). Also, arXiv is becoming an increasingly important publisher. Other areas of Wikipedia have recognized this reality. Why not here? 171.65.249.4 (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In particular, these edits are based solely on the lack of publication info, and if such info was available I would reinstate the references. I invite you to continue editing the article, if you are knowledgeable, to make sure that the remaining references are accurate in terms of the content of the referenced article, which I have not had the opportunity to verify myself at this point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)