OTP vs. non-OTP (was: A Joeish Erlang distribution (long))

Joakim G. <>
Fri Jan 31 13:13:45 CET 2003


Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> "Joakim G." <> wrote:
> 
>>I would avoid OTP at least for a middle sized software projects
>>involving 5-35 programmers.
> 
> Can't just listen quietly anymore...

Said one (of three) people who designed OTP in the first place.

> It's very interesting to hear opinions from different people; people
> who have built shipping erlang products and people that have not.
> Interstingly, people who haven't shipped products seem to think that
> OTP is an unnecessary burden, and people who actually have built
> products tend to like the support OTP gives you.
 >
> In your case, and klacke's (except for yaws, see below), you have other
> people around you that take care of the productification; building
> software packages, taking care of upgrades, start of the system,
> configuring the system etc.

Now we are talking! Martin came into my office and gave me the evil
eye btw. :-)

I just say this:

1) Did we have any choice but to use OTP having the three designers
    behind OTP itself in the project? Not.
2) Only a handful of people seems to be able to grasp all what OTP has
    to offer. Klacke and me doesn't after all these years it seems. I
    may just be plain stupid but I know Klacke isn't.
3) There was no alternative at the time. If the thing I describe here
    was in place I would have voted on using that instead.
4) I have worked for years with OTP now and I'm obviously not
    satisfied. That may not mean anything to you. It means something
    for me though.

> You think this is better done w/o OTP?
> Fine, go ahead and prove me wrong.

OK, next *new* project. I don't plan on rewriting all OTP stuff we
have now which actually works.

> Of course it's possible to do this without OTP, you can do anything
> with a turing machine...

Huh!

We should probably not burden the erlang-questions lists with further
discussions about this.

Cheers
/Jocke

> Klacke wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>You would not divide the processes into behaviors? 
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope
>>
> 
> Oh yes you would and you even do that.
> 
> 
>>>I actually do use applications. Not that I like them but if I want to
>>>write an erlang program that fits into the otp tree I must do that.
>>
> 
> Right, and this is one of the objectives for OTP - if you structure
> your code as an application with behaviours other people can easily
> integrate it into their own products.  Since even you wrote Yaws in
> this way I think we succeded!
> 
> 
> Now, of course OTP is not perfect.  As been stated before, the
> documentation needs to be better.  However, it's not _that bad_.
> People (on this list e.g.) who are actually facing a real problem (not
> just theoretically thik about it) have read the docs (and code) and
> use OTP to solve the problem.
> 
> 
> To comment on the original subject on this thread, I would also like
> to see a more modular Erlang/OTP distribution from erlang.org.
> 
> 
> 
> /martin

-- 
If you think the pen is mightier than the sword, the next time someone
pulls out a sword I'd like to see you get up there with your Bic.




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list