[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Thu Feb 13 17:58:49 CET 2014
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Vlad Dumitrescu <> wrote:
> 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.
This Java/JDK distinction is exactly right. This is how I view the
relationship between Erlang and OTP.
And this is why I think we ought to stop using "OTP" altogether. When
people talk about Java, they use "Java" even though it includes a
monstrous amount of core code that can technically be separated. It's
Now, I'm on record using Java as a model of simplicity vis-a-vis
Erlang. Great. I didn't see that one coming :/
More information about the erlang-questions