[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Thu Feb 13 00:17:46 CET 2014
I agree with Loïc.
Also, I think renaming an (almost) old _thing_ is pretty *silly*.
Loïc Hoguin <> writes:
> Historically OTP meant Open Telecom Platform.
> Today OTP means OTP. People don't use the name OTP as initials of
> anything. When they say OTP, they refer to a framework for building
> highly available fault tolerant distributed systems.
> The same situation exists with many other names. Few can tell you what
> SMTP, IMAP, HTTP, REST, SOAP, HTML, XML, JPEG, PNG and others stand
> for without looking it up and not making a mistake or three. And it
> doesn't matter, the abbreviated name is the one that is used by
> people, and it's the one that holds the meaning. Do you think "Joint
> Photographic Experts Group" is a good name for an image file format? I
> think not, but it doesn't matter, because people call it JPEG.
> And just like it, what OTP initially meant doesn't matter, because
> people refer to the framework as OTP, not as Open Telecom Platform.
> On 02/12/2014 11:04 PM, kraythe . wrote:
>> I am a newbie to Erlang so pardon if the question comes off as impertinent.
>> However, as I read more into OTP and see the power it has, I am more and
>> more irked by its name. The Open Telephony Platform seems to be a little
>> limited and I wonder if it would put off people trying to adopt Erlang for
>> other use cases.
>> I am wondering wouldn't it be better to call it the Open Technology
>> Platform? The same initials can be used, but the understanding would be
>> that the platform would be a general purpose library (which it is) useful
>> for many endeavors, not just writing a phone switch.
>> Sure it might seem trivial but any marketing guy will tell you, naming is
>> sometimes everything. So am I nuts here?
>> *Robert Simmons Jr. MSc.*
More information about the erlang-questions