[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Thu Feb 13 11:42:09 CET 2014
Le 13 févr. 2014 à 10:51, Garrett Smith <> a écrit :
> Sigh. This *is* confusing. It just is.
> Loïc you *cannot* use Erlang without OTP. The VM starts a system,
> which consists of applications, which are supervisory trees of
> Supervisors are gen_servers btw.
> If you think OTP is optional, look at the first two lines of kernel.erl:
> Historically, OTP libraries came after Erlang the language, of course,
> but this so called OTP "framework" is now endemic to Erlang.
You just proved it’s difficult to use Erlang without the stdlib. Erlang is still not OTP.
In fact, the kernel module isn’t even a preloaded module, this means it is not a necessary thing to use Erlang. You could have your own Erlang/E2 if you wanted.
> What sucks IMO is that OTP is treated as "advanced" by the community
> and by book authors. I understand the history of this, but there's a
> cost: programmers delay learning core Erlang principles of
> *applications* -- i.e. supervisor trees -- because it's not taught up.
> It's also incredibly complicated, if you don't use e2.
> The irony is that *advanced* Erlang programmers can get away
> programming outside the OTP guard rails. Beginners should not even
> consider doing this until they understand why OTP works and why they
> should deviate.
> e2 helps, a lot.
OTP is a set of building blocks for concurrent and distributed systems.
Concurrency and distribution are advanced topics.
Thus OTP is an advanced topic.
> The whole point of e2 is to simplify the correct use of OTP -- letting
> programmers *start* with applications, supervisors and gen_servers (in
> e2 they're called services and tasks -- simple huh). I know it's
> controversial, but it's controversial to those who have been teaching
> Erlang while this stuff was being baked. I don't run into new learners
> who object to starting with OTP using e2 (though maybe they're just
> being polite -- if you're out there and had problems learning with e2,
> please drop me a line, or yell at me here).
e2 is a leaky abstraction which you need to deviate from when you need more complex stuff; let’s not add an infinity of layers on top of OTP.
> I agree wholeheartedly with Pieter. It's just Erlang. Keeping the term
> OTP is a historic vestige. We're used to it, but it's a dead weight
> that adds only confusion.
Erlang itself is dead weight to most in the industry, does that mean we should forgo Erlang altogether?
> The Ruby / Rails comparison is not accurate. It's more like Rails 1.0
> / Rails 2.0.
I have no idea how you would find this accurate.
> Sadly though, I just don't see "OTP" going away because there's a
> trickle of noise from this list :|
How do you know there isn’t a silent majority who just doesn’t care or wouldn’t like the OTP team to spend time trying to rewrite history? That sounds quite a dismissal of the opposing opinion in this debate. In fact, I have to admit I wouldn’t have replied if not for that sentence.
> I make videos to cope.
I give value to historic facts and terminology to cope.
More information about the erlang-questions