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

Benoit Chesneau bchesneau@REDACTED
Thu Feb 13 14:09:17 CET 2014

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@REDACTED> wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2014, at 13:05, Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:
>>>> No I'm serious, you can use Erlang without OTP.
>>> maybe but who is doing it today? Or rather what are the selling points
>>> of just using Erlang without OTP?
>> [...]
>> Or if I wanted to use Erlang for writing small administration scripts that's probably also what I would do, as the fast boot is a really important feature there.
> It is such a jolly good idea that Joe spends a whole appendix in his book about doing just that.
> (Appendix 3, "A Simple Execution Environment".)
> Grüße, Carsten

But who is doing it today? The question stands. I mean OK, eventually
you can just use Erlang without all the OTP (even if it requires a new
boot script), but people don't come on erlang because of the language
but due to  OTP. And few knows you can use Erlang the other way. OTP
is the selling point right now. (Not saying it should be)

I also say Erlang/OTP and often I add to the one that ask that OTP is
a framework, but then people are more puzzled than they were before.
Maybe rust did the right things by  clearly separating the language
and the runtime from the standard library and other libs ?

- benoit

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list