This. There’s no demonstration of any game made with this “game engine”. The benchmarks are some matrix multiplication and unimpressive message passing.
There might be some cool data container ideas or primitives. Those could have useful applications. But it isn’t really a “game engine”. Nor does it seem like an interesting way to build one.
I wouldn't even call it clever. The Actor model trivializes avoiding locks, since you're letting everything act on stale information (if the actors process concurrently) and then just iterating through their intended actions against a singleton state and resolving those conflicts with sequential code.
If what you are building isn't an actual house, or an actual game engine, then how could anybody claim they had build that particular house, or that particular game engine?
If what you were working on--for the entire time you were working on it--was a completely different thing from a house or from a game engine, how could you clame to have built a house or a game engine? Putatively, what you were working on what an entirely different thing from the result.
Can you point at a house and say “I designed this house?” If the house didn’t have some kind of existence while you were even designing it, how could it be that you designed that, particular house?
