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

[Loïc Hoguin]

Good point. OTP is just Swedish for SDK. The name was perfect after all!

On 02/13/2014 04:40 PM, Joacim Grebenö wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>

-- 
Loïc Hoguin
http://ninenines.eu