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

[Anthony Ramine]

Java without OOP is a different language.

Erlang without OTP is still Erlang.

-- 
Anthony Ramine

Le 13 févr. 2014 à 15:21, Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED> a écrit :

> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@REDACTED> 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.
> 
> regards,
> Vlad
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions