What is this guy talking about? Lots of words with a very vague red thread, and in the end:
It has been suggested in the comments that when people say that Erlang style actors don’t share state they mean it doesn’t share memory. First, I clearly defined state in the previous article as being different from its representation. But, just as importantly, I think that saying “we don’t share memory” is a distinction without distinction. It’s an implementor’s point of view that doesn’t reflect how a user must think about actors.
Having been on the internets before, I know that when people begin to clear up (adjust?) definitions, you know something fishy is going on. I mean, shaking the definitions have been used before (what is the definition of ‘is’, anyway?). Of course, it is an argument tactics that has many success stories (prisoner of war/illegal combatant, torture/interview, theft/performance bonus, christianity/intelligent design, etc.)
The particular post above smells more like a desire to bash Erlang as it is new and different, clashing with the programmer community the author identifies with and has his experience with. Not at all for pointing out something yet unknown and/or really bad about Erlang or the actor model itself. I could be wrong. I’m waiting for the movie based on the post. He is definitely not asking for clarification on something he doesnt understand though.
For future reference, here is what everyone already know about erlang (not exhaustive, not all related to the above article):