[erlang-questions] Why do we need modules at all?

Richard O'Keefe <>
Wed May 25 08:33:12 CEST 2011


On 25/05/2011, at 12:45 AM, Joe Armstrong wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Max Lapshin <> wrote:
> Very strange topic for me.
> 
> I'd like to know if there will be hierarchial modules in Erlang,
> because tree of packages is a rather good idea:
> 
> No it's not - this has been the subject of long and heated discussion and is
> why packages are NOT in Erlang - many people - myself included - dislike
> the idea of hierarchical namespaces. The *dot* in the name has no semantics
> it's just a separator. The name could equally well be encoders.mpg.erlyvideo
> or mpg.applications.erlvideo.encoder - there is no logical way to organise the
> package name and it does not scale -

I should point out that Haskell has dotted names,
uses them to indicate semantics,
and has a *managed* hierarchical name space;
Data.* and Control.* and Net.* and so on are
tolerably clear.

I should also admit that there are occasional complaints
about it not being clear where things have been put, and
other indexing and searching tools are often used to find
things.





More information about the erlang-questions mailing list