[kll]

Acton has a different focus than Erlang. Beyond syntax, the type system is likely the biggest difference, both in how in feels to the developer as well as what it means for things under the hood. I think Acton, given static typing, can compile down to more efficient code than what you can ever achieve with Erlang. From this perspective, Acton is more in the same camp as Rust or Go. But where Go is a language built around CSP, Acton, like Erlang, is built around the actor model. So if you like actors but also like types, maybe Acton is for you :)

There's lots of work to get types into Erlang, but it's hard to bolt things on afterwards, which is why Acton is a language and not just an actor framework for X.