[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Thu Feb 13 15:59:04 CET 2014
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Anthony Ramine <n.oxyde@REDACTED> wrote:
> Java without OOP is a different language.
> Erlang without OTP is still Erlang.
IMHO the only difference is that OTP is implemented as a library and
doesn't have dedicated language syntax. I make difference between OTP
as design/system building guidelines and its implementation. The
former is more like OOP for Java. The latter is more like the JDK.
> 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.
>> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions