Talk:Actor model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Actor libraries and frameworks - addition[edit]

Perhaps we should add Functional Java ( 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 (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: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, CL-MUPROC for Common lisp ( sould be added (under BSD License) -- (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 July 2012[edit]

libcppa was released in version 0.2.1 two days ago (2012-07-02). Furthermore, reference [43] should imo link to the Git 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[edit]

Perhaps you can add a reference to STAGE implementation of the actor model in python from Imperial College of London - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fikovnik (talkcontribs) 14:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2012[edit]

Akka 2.0.2 was released on June 12 2012.

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

Link to german version[edit]


today I have finished an article about the actor model in the German Wikipedia. Can you please place to link to the version?

Best regards,

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

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


Section titles should accurately reflect subject matter. So I have changed the title to reflect the content below. (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: and the subsequent discussions.)
Hewitt published an account of his Wikipedia misadventures in Corruption of Wikipedia. (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 (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. (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 (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? (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 (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. (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 "" 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). (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[1].
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 ;-) (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. (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Finally, the "What is Computation?" article[1] 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. (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. (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+. (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. (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I made a relatively minimal edit [5]. (1) I removed the 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? (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)
You have removed the most important and fundamental reference in the article:
Is it wise to cripple the article, just because there is a Wikipedia vendetta against Hewitt?
  1. ^ a b Carl Hewitt, "What is computation? Actor Model versus Turing's Model", A Computable Universe: Understanding Computation & Exploring Nature as Computation. Dedicated to the memory of Alan M. Turing on the 100th anniversary of his birth. Edited by Hector Zenil. World Scientific Publishing Company. 2012
  2. ^ Carl Hewitt. "Actor Model of Computation: Scalable Robust Information Systems" Proceedings of Inconsistency Robustness 2011. [1] Also [2] (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide the complete publication information - including the publisher, place of publication, pages, doi, etc. - for the reference. A review of the WHOIS information shows that is a website registered to an individual, rather than to any professional society or publisher. I want to emphasize that the issue is that the paper has no publication information apart from the arXiv and a link to a conference website registered to an individual. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


Due to continuing violations of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt, I have semiprotected the article for six months. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the semi-protection should be lifted immediately because the ruling specifically says periods up to 1 month if needed, not 3 months or 6 months or 100,000 months. Maghnus (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It is true, but given the long pattern of violations, there is no reason to burden ourselves re-protecting articles every one month. The general pattern is that a longer protection seems to calm things down. Since you have requested unprotection, and the other affected articles have been quiet lately, I have unprotected the article. However, if the problem returns, I will re-protect it for several months. (It is worth emphasizing that this is semi-protection, not full protection.) — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that WP:PROTECT allows for protections such as this, independent of the arbitration case. Cf. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, I hadn't read the more general policy on protection, so it looked to me like sort of creeping overreach/severity. Considering how long this has been going on (baffling), I guess it won't be long before the little lock is back, but thanks for being pragmatic and giving it a shot anyway. Maghnus (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please update a release date for me.[edit]

Please update the release date for the Actor Framework project to 11/13/2013. IE, in the source, look for this section:

| Actor Framework | style="background:#9F9;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Active | 2013-09-02 | Apache 2.0 | .NET

Replace the date with 2013-11-13. Source: me, as I am the dev on that project. You can verify this by looking at and looking at the date on the right. Thanks, Brian Grunkemeyer ( BrianGrunkemeyer (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Done, Mdd (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please add SObjectizer framework to Actor libraries and frameworks list[edit]

Please add one more item to Actor libraries and frameworks list:

| SObjectizer | style="background:#9F9;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Active | 2013-11-14 | New BSD | C++

Ngrodzitski (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please update SObjectizer framework info in the list of Actor libraries and frameworks[edit]

Please update SObjectizer item info in the list of Actor libraries and frameworks:

| SObjectizer | style="background:#9F9;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Active | 2013-12-16 | New BSD | C++

Ngrodzitski (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 23:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please update SObjectizer framework info in the list of Actor libraries and frameworks (2014-01-04)[edit]

Please update SObjectizer item info in the list of Actor libraries and frameworks:

| SObjectizer | style="background:#9F9;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Active | 2014-01-04 | New BSD | C++

Ngrodzitski (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

active application projects[edit]

How long after the last release will a project qualify as inactive? 2 years of inactivity looks like a lot to me. --K0zka (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Does Erlang use Actor? Talk:Erlang_(programming_language)#History_accourding_to_J.C3.B6rg_Mittag

Comments invited. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please add the following reference to the article:

Carl Hewitt "Actor Model of Computation" in Inconsistency Robustness Studies in Logic. Vol. 52. College Publications. 2015, ISBN 978-1848901599

Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)hat
It looks like some censor removed the reference when it was added to the article. (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Pinging Arthur Rubin, CBM and SlimVirgin who seem to know more about this situation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, it would be very good to have some fresh eyes on this page, and on the articles Carl Hewitt and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The general background is quite long. A summary by The Guardian is here. After the arbitration case, a large number of IP accounts have been used to make the same sorts of edits that were banned by the arbitration remedies. Recently, IP accounts have been used to insert or recommend citations to Hewitt's current research, sometimes by adding it as a reference for a claim that has long been in an article, e.g. [6].
There is nothing wrong with references to reliable published work, of course, if they are added by non-banned editors in a way that follows general Wikipedia principles. I would encourage other editors to research the book Inconsistency Robustness when it becomes available (it is on Amazon, but not yet available in any library indexed by WorldCat), and to add it to the article as appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The book is Vol. 52 in the very prestigious Studies in Logic series under Dov Gabbay. Professor Hewitt's article in the book has the latest and most accurate information on the Actor Model. (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it is the latest and most accurate information (although "most accurate" is a strange turn of phrase when referring to theoretical computability). In that case, some other editor will add it. In the meantime, Carl Hewitt is banned from editing Wikipedia; that extends to the entire project, including talk pages. Please do not place any more edit requests on this page. They will be removed without further comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)