[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Thu Feb 13 16:03:54 CET 2014
That’s a *HUGE* difference. Erlang as a language is very small; OTP is a very complex piece of software, as is BEAM. The three shouldn’t be conflated.
Java as a language is big and complex, because it has a lot of concepts directly inside the language.
Le 13 févr. 2014 à 15:59, Vlad Dumitrescu <> a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Anthony Ramine <> 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 <> a écrit :
>>> 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.
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions