Talk:Actor model/Archive 1

message: This is the discussion page for the Wikipedia article Actor model.
Although in some sense the Actor model is conceptually very simple, it is also highly technical.  There were mistakes made in its development.  Unfortunately, as shown in the discussion below, it is still quite possible for those who are not versed in its intricacies to make serious errors.
So it is suggested that changes to this article first be proposed in this discussion page rather than just editing the article.  Of course typos, spelling, grammar, etc. should just be corrected as usual.--Carl Hewitt 09:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General Discussion

message: Can you make clear to me why the actor model is not a process calculus? As it seems to me to have very stong connections to the Ambients, which are a process calculus. Koffieyahoo 8 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
Please see the article Actor model and process calculi--Carl Hewitt 21:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not answering my question. I don't see any reference to ambients on the page you mention. -- Koffieyahoo 12:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the "Migration" section.--Carl Hewitt 14:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship to process calculi

message: I created articles Actor model theory and Actor model implementation for these specialized subtopics.--Carl Hewitt 20:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created [[Actor model theory]] and [[Actor model implementation]] 

message: The most helpful way to improve the Reference section would be for someone to make each reference live so that clicking on it would take you to a online version of the referenced work.
Secondarily it would help if the references were put in Wikipedia standard form.--Carl Hewitt 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the Reference section 

message: Some readers have asked why Actor is capitalized.  The answer is that in some computer systems (especially animation) that we have to deal with two kinds of "actors":  the characters (called actors) and the concurrent entities that pass messages around to implement the characters (called Actors).  Capitalizing the latter helps to disambiguate them.--Carl Hewitt 21:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that we follow Clinger and Agha, regardless of this possible ambiguity. It is also closer to the WP style guide for capitalization.--CSTAR 21:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me, I think you should have given me the chance of replying before reverting.--CSTAR 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  The article was in an inconsistent state with just a couple of instances at the very beginning capitalized.--Carl Hewitt 22:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still maintain that it should not be capitalized.  Besides the WP style guideline, I have given two authoritative published sources in which actor is not capitalized. Can you do likewise? Referring to your sayso is not a valid justification, although a refereed publication or a technical report at a university or company (written by you) would be justification.--CSTAR 02:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am capitalizing it in my publications, e.g, see the abstract Talk:Carl_Hewitt#Semantics_for_Autonomy_and_Interdependence_in_Agents which is submitted for publication.--Carl Hewitt 14:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had written a response to this  which I see you deleted and replaced with the comments above. It is particularly irksome that you refer to "some outsider" (presumably me). Though your article reference is not what I had asked (it's just another page on WP), it will do. Note that my asking you this is not in the cpapacity of an outsider determining the stylistic norms of the actor research community. In fact, it seems that you have appointed yourself as the official spokesperson for that community. I don't see them yet agreeing with you.--CSTAR 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not appointed myself as official spokesperson.  We will see who follows the convention.  The ones working in animation probably have the strongest reason.  However, it would be surprising if everyone followed the convention.--Carl Hewitt 15:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether Actor is capitalized or not is (probably) not that important; nevertheless, I wouldn't want to have  Wikipedia become the standard the actor community (of which you are a member, but there are others as you point out) (or any community) relies on to determine a particular notational convention. No? --CSTAR 03:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Actor is capitalized 

message: Please note the following facts gleaned from the history pages of this talk page  and the those of the Carl Hewitt WP talk page :
# Time at which Hewitt made the first response to my comment on this talk page (which I had posted at 02:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not revising the time stamp when I revised my comment.  I forgot to do it and will try to do better in the future.  At the time when I revised my comment no one had yet responded.  The Wikipedia seems to be very unstable at this time.--Carl Hewitt 16:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the record 

message: Folks,
I moved some material to Planner programming language where I think that it may be more appropriate.  What do you think?
Also other ideas for improvement are greatly appreciated.
Thanks, --Carl Hewitt 06:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Carl, I think this was a good edit to make. --Allan McInnes 07:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: First Edsger Dijkstra developed semaphores and then Tony Hoare [1974] and Per Brinch Hansen developed monitors to solve the mutual exclusion problem. However, neither of these solutions provided a programming language construct that encapsulated access to shared resources.
Arguably monitors do encapsulate access to shared resources. They are a bit more low-level than serializers (especially when used with condition variables), but they achieve a similar effect. It would be interesting to have a subsection comparing monitors and serializers. DavidHopwood 01:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monitors and encapsulation 

message: I moved the material on Bert Sutherland's thesis to Dataflow_language#History for the following reasons:
*The thesis does not treat concurrency at all.  It doesn't even seem to be aware of semaphores.
*The thesis does not treat message passing at all.  It only has expression level parallelism as in early data flow languages.
*The main point of the thesis is the implementation of a graphical system for simple data flow expressions.--24.23.212.54 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Sutherland to [[Dataflow_language#History]]