[erlang-questions] Rather not - aintiquated build/deploy processes (Re: Why isn't erlang strongly typed?)

Holger Hoffstaette holger@REDACTED
Tue Oct 21 20:24:57 CEST 2008

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:10:38 +0300, Taavi Talvik wrote:

> Erlang has enourmously strong foundation for build&deploy processes.

Yes, I understand all that. I was thinking about development, not
operational concerns. The runtime properties are all very nice and well
thought-out, no argument there.

However, it is not clear to me why the domain necessitates user-hostile,
platform-specific development tools like (e)make. I know that these things
tend to "accidentally" happen, but regardless of the established history,
one has to wonder exactly how often the good Erlang team was allowed to go
into the big blue room known as "outside". :)


PS: please don't take this too seriously. I'm just miffed that so many
Erlang modules are built with platform-specific Makefiles and Unixy paths.
Good cross-platform toolchain support is rarely a technical problem.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list