[tytrdev]

Yes, but only a part. It’s not just about having something akin to actors for concurrency and execution. It’s also about having a dynamic system - one that can update its behavior not just by manual request, but automatically as the system is running.

One way to think about this is propagators. I’m still learning myself, but a compelling example is lisp. With lisp you can write macros that essentially allow you to treat your code as a tree and arbitrarily modify that tree (aka arbitrarily write code). You can then compile that code while the system is running and execute it. It’s not just about macro expansion at startup or a single compile time step at the beginning of execution. The system can be designed with this in mind.

It’s also about introspection, the ability to ask questions about the system at runtime as it evolves.

Sussman and Kay both talk a lot about DNA and biology, and the ability for systems to dynamically expand, change, and repair themselves.

When I think about this kind of stuff nowadays I picture something like lisp with an execution environment like the BEAM (so basically LFE) and an introspection system powered by a declarative constraint solving query language (something like Datalog-style RDF found in things like datalevin and it’s predecessors). I think that lends itself really well to these kinds of systems, including another point that Kay talks about pretty frequently. The ability for two systems (and in our cases two actors in one environment count) to negotiate with each other via some shared fundamental language to understand each other’s purpose. SOP style approaches seem like a compelling way to do that, but the main problem to me is identifying entities as globally unique as part of that negotiation process.

Also don’t listen to me, I’m a monkey.

[ProfHewitt]

Probably can't make much progress without a scientific foundation including the Actors Abstraction.