Why and how should actors outperform OpenMP or TPL? They serve completely different goals.
Show us numbers. That was the main request of my comment, and you come with a list of libraries? We hear all the time how great Scala is with respect to parallel computing. Show me some good examples, where it beats C++ or C# with TPL, say doing number crunching.
It's all to easy to repeat a mantra (parallel programming in Scala rocks), but it has been proven correct rarely. Given such statements, I would either expect it to be much easier to parallelize programs in Scala (as opposed to, say, adding OpenMP pragmas) or would expect parallelized programs to be much faster. Neither seem to be true.
First, I am reacting to the original commenter, and pointing out that your post does not answer my question to the original commenter.
Second, I do know the difference between concurrency and parallelism (since I use the latter a lot, and the former in the rare occasion of writing GUI programs). Anyway, your ad hominems do not serve the discussion.
Third, mentioning 'actors' and OpenMP is one sentence was poking a bit of fun at the overly broad statements often made by fans of Scala (and Erlang) about what Actors will do. But the next time I will leave my sardonicism at the door.
Show us numbers. That was the main request of my comment, and you come with a list of libraries? We hear all the time how great Scala is with respect to parallel computing. Show me some good examples, where it beats C++ or C# with TPL, say doing number crunching.
It's all to easy to repeat a mantra (parallel programming in Scala rocks), but it has been proven correct rarely. Given such statements, I would either expect it to be much easier to parallelize programs in Scala (as opposed to, say, adding OpenMP pragmas) or would expect parallelized programs to be much faster. Neither seem to be true.