A Joeish Erlang distribution

[Vance Shipley]

You guys are confusing the people on this list who haven't had the
benefit of years of Erlang coding experience.  It's hard to wrap
your head around the difference between Erlang and OTP when what
you're working with is the documentation for the Erlang/OTP
distribution.

In my case I embraced Erlang because the OTP was built using it.
I wasn't looking for a cool new language that I'd be the only one
on my block who knew.(*)  I was looking to manage all the problems 
that come with building a telecom system.  OTP may not be perfect
but until you're ready to build a better one you should be using
it.  

For all the folks still on the learning curve (most):

	Follow the OTP design principles, and use the OTP
	tools.  You will stay out of trouble and build 
	systems which work well while concentrating on
	your application itself.

   -Vance


On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:47:24AM +0100, Joakim G. wrote:
}  
}  I would avoid OTP at least for a middle sized software projects
}  involving 5-35 programmers.
}  
}  Why? I would like to keep full transparency to the use of primitive
}  Erlang constructs, e.g. (async/sync) message passing, receive
}  statements, loop based servers, EXIT signal propagation etc.
}  
}  OTP's high level abstraction and callback oriented approach alienates
}  the programmer from what actually is going on in the system. This is
}  bad. It also extremely boring. If you want Xt programming why not go
}  for that directly.


(*) Erlang certainly is cool and using the language to code our 
    applications has been both a joy and a boon to our productivity.
    (...and I'm pretty sure I'm the only one on the block ...)