[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?

Loïc Hoguin essen@REDACTED
Thu Feb 13 12:03:49 CET 2014

Oops, one small fix.

On 02/13/2014 12:01 PM, Loïc Hoguin wrote:
> No I'm serious, you can use Erlang without OTP. When the VM starts it
> loads the boot file which contains instructions on what modules to
> preload, what applications to start and so on. Make an empty boot file

   ^^^^^^^ I meant *load*. The VM will have a few modules preloaded 
regardless of the boot file.

> and look at what happens, most likely it will complain about the lists
> module missing. Then add your own lists module and try again. It will
> also complain about no error logger being present. Etc.
> When the VM starts it creates process 0 that calls otp_ring0:start/2;
> don't let the name fool you, it's just an Erlang function that calls
> init:boot, which is the code that loads the boot file. The normal boot
> file then sets paths, loads all modules from kernel and stdlib and
> starts three additional processes: heart, error_logger and
> application_controller. But you don't actually need those.
> The smallest boot script, that literally only loads the boot file and
> then sits there doing nothing, is this:
> {script, {"Not OTP","1.2.3"}, [{path,["."]}, {primLoad, [lists]}]}.
> As you can see I only add "." to the paths to load beam files from, and
> that's where I put my lists module. This module could very well have
> been one I wrote myself, and it could literally contain only the
> functions required, but for the sake of the example I just took the one
> from my install.
> It's interesting because if you really want to you can have a very
> minimal VM that starts really fast (as has been proposed a few times to
> make rebar a little faster). Because the VM *does* starts *really* fast.
> % time erl -boot test -run init stop
> erl -boot test -run init stop  0.02s user 0.00s system 92% cpu 0.022 total
> You could also create your own framework and use it instead of OTP. Even
> better, you could do something like Wayland is doing with Xorg, have
> your own framework be started as the "master" and then make it start OTP
> and make them run side by side.
> It's only an interesting thought, of course, because it would take an
> immense amount of time to get it as reliable as OTP.
> On 02/13/2014 10:51 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>> 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
>> gen_servers.
>> Supervisors are gen_servers btw.
>> If you think OTP is optional, look at the first two lines of kernel.erl:
>>      -module(kernel).
>>      -behaviour(supervisor).
>> Historically, OTP libraries came after Erlang the language, of course,
>> but this so called OTP "framework" is now endemic to Erlang.
>> 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.
>> 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).
>> 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.
>> The Ruby / Rails comparison is not accurate. It's more like Rails 1.0
>> / Rails 2.0.
>> Sadly though, I just don't see "OTP" going away because there's a
>> trickle of noise from this list :|
>> I make videos to cope.
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Ivan Uemlianin <ivan@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> On 13/02/2014 08:13, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
>>>> ... (a) stop using OTP as a
>>>> confusing and needless synonym for Erlang, ...
>>> Is that what OTP is used as?  I thought OTP was a set (or framework, or
>>> platform) of libraries (behaviours, supervision, etc.) that
>>> facilitate the
>>> development of highly scalable and reliable applications (telecoms-grade
>>> scalability and reliability you might say).  AFAIK it's open-source.
>>> Yes, let's rename it to something that more closely reflects what it
>>> really
>>> is.  How about the "Open-source Telecoms-grade reliability and
>>> scalability
>>> Platform"?
>>> Ivan
>>> --
>>> ============================================================
>>> Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD
>>> Llaisdy
>>> Speech Technology Research and Development
>>>                      ivan@REDACTED
>>>                       www.llaisdy.com
>>>                           llaisdy.wordpress.com
>>>                github.com/llaisdy
>>>                       www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin
>>>                          festina lente
>>> ============================================================
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

Loïc Hoguin

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list