&gt; &#x27;Actor model&#x27; but it ended up being very misunderstood when implemented in C++, Java, etc,<p>Yap here it is right from the horse&#x27;s mouth, so to speak:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;computinged.wordpress.com&#x2F;2010&#x2F;09&#x2F;11&#x2F;moti-asks-objects-never-well-hardly-ever&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;computinged.wordpress.com&#x2F;2010&#x2F;09&#x2F;11&#x2F;moti-asks-objec...</a> (see comments history)<p>---<p>If you are doing “simulated data structure programming” rather than object oriented programming. One of my original motivations for trying to invent OOP was to eliminate imperative assignment (at least as a global unprotected action). “Real OOP” is much more about “requests”, and the more the requests invoke goals the object knows how to accomplish, the better. “Abstract Data Types” is not OOP!<p>...<p>Many of Carl Hewitt’s Actors ideas which got sparked by the original Smalltalk were more in the spirit of OOP than the subsequent Smalltalks. Significant parts of Erlang are more like a real OOP language the the current Smalltalk, and certainly the C based languages that have been painted with “OOP paint”.&quot;<p>---<p>There you have it folks, Erlang is more OO than C++&#x2F;Java and C#. It is kind of a funny tidbit, good for sharing during  meetups over beers.<p>One interesting response to that I heard from a developer was &quot;Well, it doesn&#x27;t matter what Kay thinks anymore. C++&#x2F;Java&#x2F;C# got so popular and that is OO now officially&quot;.