[erlang-questions] Poll on Erlang maintenance, according to Erlang developers

[Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya]

> If I'd have to give a personnal guess to explain it, I'd say that the common structure of OTP behaviours and applications tend to give some stricter modularity constraints to a system, on top of wrapping common behaviours under very well known patterns.


I would quite agree with this - it applies across quite a few of the results from your poll, (Importance of OTP, Time to adapt, Factors in maintenance, Knowledge of OTP, etc.)
While not a guarantee, the odds are that the more OTP-like the code, the more likely that a reasonable "Separation of Concerns" has been maintained, with "distribution" and "business logic" being somewhat distinct.

There are also a whole bunch of second-order effects that come into play - if you're using OTP, you probably spent some time figuring out how to actually accomplish the task at hand (w/ the obligatory hierarchy of gen_server, gen_fsm, and gen_event usage :-)  ), etc., which definitely makes other people's lives easier if they have to live/work with your code...

Cheers

p.s. Thanks for the yeoman's work Fred!

Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya
That Tall Bald Indian Guy...
Blog   |   Twitter   |   Google+

On Sep 2, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Max Lapshin wrote:

> Fred, thank you very much.
> 
> Last three graphs are very interesting, because it is possible to see,
> how understanding of importance migrates in time.
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120902/5656cdb5/attachment.htm>