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

[Joacim Grebenö]

s/OTP/SDK/g

Den 13 feb 2014 15:59 skrev Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED>:
>
> 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. 
>
> /Vlad 
>
> > -- 
> > 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 
> > 
> _______________________________________________ 
> erlang-questions mailing list 
> erlang-questions@REDACTED 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions