Why is Akka being marketed as reactive? Is Actor Model reactive?

Question

As far as I understand the Actor Model and the Reactive Programming are separate concepts. Actor Model does not seem to be inherently reactive to me.

However the Akka framework which is an Actor Model implementation is being described as reactive:

"Java and Scala program logic lives in lightweight Actor objects, which send and receive messages in a reactive fashion."

"We Are Reactive"

Is it a case of misusing the term or they are completely correct? Is any actor model implementation (e.g. Erlang) already reactive? Is simply generating messages as a response to other messages considered reactive as well?

Some related reading where the approaches are contrasted:

• StackOverflow: RX vs messaging queues like rabbitmq or zeromq?

• CS.SE: How do Functional Reactive Programming and the Actor model relate to each other?

• Lambda the Ultimate: Actors vs. Reactive Objects

Answer 1

They don't mean reactive as in functional reactive programming, they mean reactive as in the reactive manifesto, which is a more generic term for a movement to build software that is event-driven, scalable, and resilient. It's a relative recent movement and the term hasn't really caught on.