News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Pony – High Performance Actor Programming by rdtsc on Sunday May 03, 2015 @06:31PM (#9483346)
Can you explain some more or point to the exact part of the research paper. When you say "GC'ing actors themselves vs GC'ing memory reachable from actor" what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about the process dictionary and mailbox vs the state of actor passed through its loop function?

For arguments' sake here is what a simple Erlang actor looks like:

    loop(State) -> 
      ...
      loop(NewState).
      ...
Maybe you can spawn it with:

    Pid = spawn(fun () -> loop(InitState) end)
Re:Pony – High Performance Actor Programming by Matthias247 on Sunday May 03, 2015 @06:41PM (#9483376)
I guess the claim was that such an erlang actor would run forever when nobody sends it a message to stop it. And with pony it would be detected that the actor is no longer reachable and it would be automatically stopped.
Re:Pony – High Performance Actor Programming by SnowyOwl on Sunday May 03, 2015 @07:50PM (#9483568)
Indeed, Pony can automatically detect actors with empty stacks and message queues, also when these are part of a cycle.
Re:Pony – High Performance Actor Programming by rdtsc on Sunday May 03, 2015 @08:44PM (#9483730)
Erlang has something like that as well:

http://erldocs.com/17.3/erts/erlang.html#hibernate/3

Hibernate compresses the current memory, save it and then kill the active process. Then if a message is sent to it, it "wakes" up.