One of the advantages of this is that improved implementations can be provided by third parties such as Akka and Lift. Its a shame the current default implementation is so slow but for me this doesn't reflect badly on Scala the language.
Well, actually this article fails to answer the main question. I would restate the article as: "Why are my code snippets in Scala perform slow compared to my favorite (and well known) library?" This title would be fair then.
I'm quite curious how Scala performs against Erlang in terms of this sort of programming. Scala looks like it brings a decent implementation to a language that's perhaps a little bit more within the grasp of ordinary programmers and also has a vast amount of Java code available through the JVM. However, I'm curious how that all works out in practice...
Actually, a few years ago mozart/oz had better performance of actors than erlang, I don't know what the case is today. Mozart/oz came a decade later than erlang and they incorporated it's lessons into the language - mozart/oz is a multiparadigm language and has a lot of functionality.
"Asynchronious message passing is old and great idea. Instead of synchronizing objects and dealing with deadlocks we try to isolate objects and let them exchange messages. Erlang proved it to be extremly powerful tool applicable to wide range of highly scalable mission critical applications.
In JVM landscape big interest to this approach started after introducing Scala actors. "
That statement is so very poorly informed! JMS ("surprise"?) has been a sign of "interest" in "Asynchronious message passing" in the "JVM landscape".
I am not up on my Scala, but the author fails to convey (based on what I do know ;) the competence level that would lend weight to his attempt to address (much less support) the topic.
For those interested in other JVM alternatives, Kilim seems quite promising and seems to hold its own quite well in benchmarks against Erlang.