One important feature of the Actor model is that messages are unidirectional. When an actor sends a message it does not require a reply as part of the protocol. If the actor needs a reply or wishes to handle a reply, it sets up a callback. The callback can have a well-known name that any actor can use in a message, or it can be an unnamed piece of code (a lambda expression) that shares the context of the sender.
Since messages are unidirectional, they don't require a ‘return address’. The message may have a return address as part of a callback, but that's a protocol decision, it isn't built-in to the message itself. The recipient of the message might simply ignore the callback (it is allowed to).
The recipient of a message can pretty much do anything it wants. Of course we expect the program to be written such that something useful happens, but the recipient of a message is allowed to do things like
- compute something
- change its state
- send a message
- create new actors
Function calling = message passing (almost)
A procedure is like an actor. Nothing happens until you invoke it (send it a message), it can compute something, change its state (if it is a closure or has access to something mutable), and call other procedures (create new actors and send them messages). But a procedure will be a limited form of actor if it cannot fully delegate its computation to another procedure.
In virtually every computer language, a procedure call has an implicit continuation (informally, the caller). ‘Returning a value’ is ‘invoking the continuation’. Whether a procedure can fully delegate to another depends on how the language manages the implicit continuation. If the language supports proper tail recursion, then when a procedure tail calls another, the implicit continuation is passed directly along to the callee. If the language does not support proper tail recursion, then the implicit continuation is not passed to the callee. Instead, a new implicit continuation is allocated that contains (wraps around) the old one. The wrapper doesn't actually do anything in the tail call situation, it just takes up space and possibly retains pointers to reclaimable storage, but you can't get rid of it because it is built in to the language.
If you cannot pass the implicit continuation on to the callee, then you cannot fully delegate the computation. If you cannot fully delegate, then you cannot fully model message passing with function calls. On the other hand, if you can fully delegate, then a function call is exactly the same passing a message (in our synchronous, serial actor model).
Tail recursion unifies message passing and function calling. This is the reason tail recursion is cool. The fact that this allows you to write a loop as a tail call is sort of a side benefit. (It directly follows because all control structure can be modeled as message passing, but as I mentioned repeatedly, I have nothing against looping constructs per se.)
With tail recursion, you have message passing embedded in your language. By embedded I mean that you don't have to directly manipulate message objects and inject and extract values from them. That happens automatically as part of the function call syntax.
Without tail recursion, you have to implement message passing as a separate, ‘bolted on’, feature. You will have explicit message objects to allocate, initialize, enqueue, poll for, destructure, and deallocate. The control structure that emerges from the message passing patterns will interfere with the control structure in your code (you'll have to structure all your code around the ‘driver loop’).