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

Vlad Dumitrescu <>
Thu Feb 13 15:21:01 CET 2014

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Benoit Chesneau <> wrote:
> 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 ?

I would say that OTP is to Erlang what OOP is to Java. You can write
Java programs that are not object-oriented, but why choose Java for
that in the first place?

OTP is in my opinion a design philosophy that guides us when it comes
to structuring and developing distributed fault-tolerant systems. It
comes with library support that is intimately tied to the Erlang
libraries: the most basic Erlang apps (kernel and stdlib) are also the
ones that implement the OTP concepts. Even more, Erlang code is
structured as applications, and an "application" is an OTP concept!

I can only see meaning in trying to separate the language from OTP
either as an academic exercise or in order to implement a different
language on the beam runtime and the new concepts would collide
implementation-wise with OTP. Or one wants to create OTP 2.0 without
interference with 1.0.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list