The Erlang Question

Sep 5, 2013 at 6:41 AM
Edited Sep 5, 2013 at 6:41 AM
Friends who use Erlang constantly remind me that the primary difference between Erlang and actor libraries is that Erlang is essentially an OS with native support for actors. They claim that a library cannot possibly compete without radically altering the underlying runtime environment.

How does ActorFx answer this assertion?
Sep 5, 2013 at 9:38 PM
Yeah, I agree -- any actor framework with native/OS support will probably outperform any actor framework w/o such support.

The main purpose of ActorFx is to provide a language-neutral actor framework for Azure. Of course we could make it even better if Windows/Azure OS was designed from the ground up to support ActorFx, but that was not a realistic option for us. So we designed it as a set of libraries atop of Azure.
Sep 5, 2013 at 11:04 PM
Just curious, do you or your Erlang friends know of any good benchmark for actor-based applications, with some performance or scalability numbers for their system? Since you seem interested, perhaps you could help us compare our performance vs. Erlang. We know we have some scalability challenges (as noted in our release notes), and we are working hard on fixing those for our next release. But we'd like to understand what problems you would find most valuable for us to solve.

What sort of app have you been building using actors?