Erlang is getting too big

Sean Hinde sean.hinde@REDACTED
Mon Oct 13 13:33:24 CEST 2003

> My goal would be to make Erlang _better_, which in some cases might 
> mean
> "'bigger', but 'easier'" or "'bigger', but 'faster to develop in'". 
> It's not
> "add features just for the fun of it".
> I am very much aware about the situation Erlang is in, being both 
> commercial and
> open-sourced, and I am certain that it's very difficult to keep the 
> balance.
> Well, not really - I suppose if there's a real conflict, the paying 
> customers
> will always win. Discussing about enhancements can't hurt, I think, 
> just because
> the OTP team is (and needs to be!) quite conservative when it comes to 
> new
> stuff.
> On the other hand, saying "let's stop any development of the language, 
> it's good
> enough as it is" is in my humble opinion at least as bad as bloating 
> Erlang just
> for the sake of it.

Perhaps I should clarify slightly more than I did. I am not arguing for 
not changing anything. The bit syntax is something so awesome to behold 
and simplifies so much that is core to the Erlang problem domain that I 
totally approve of the decision to add that.

My concern is of adding new features which are a bit tweaky, language 
researchy which do not contribute to the singular vision of Erlang, 
which to me is all about building massive systems which are 
maintainable by non "CS genius" people who can be trained in the 
language in a week.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list