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

Garrett Smith <>
Thu Feb 13 18:18:35 CET 2014


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Fred Hebert <> wrote:
> I have a hard time seeing how the next steps go.
>
> 0. Convince Ericsson
> 1. Rewrite libraries like OTP_Mibs to no longer bear the acronym OTP,
>    and do so in a backwards compatible manner over 2 releases
> 2. Rewrite language docs to omit mentioning OTP, use a replacement term
> 3. Rewrite language tutorials online to omit mentioning OTP similarly
> 4. Make sure new books, tutorials, blog posts, etc. do not refer to OTP
> 5. Add in pointers somewhere easy to find that explain why stuff was OTP
>    before and even had entire sections of books devoted to it but now we
>    no longer mention the name
> 6. Live with the legacy of roughly 15 years of open source 'OTP' and
>    'Erlang/OTP' mentions and how it doesn't make sense anymore even
>    though nothing changed in practice.
> 7. Ask manning to re-print Erlang and OTP in action as 'Erlang and its
>    SDK go for a Picnic'
> 8. Have people ask why it's compared to a SDK when there's a lot fewer
>    features than traditional SDKs, and point them to this thread.
> 9. Discuss renaming the Erlang SDK to something else for better
>    marketing purposes since the adoption of Erlang didn't change and was
>    possibly hurt during the confusion.
>
> I don't know. Sometimes you gotta live with your legacy.

*nods* - OTP isn't going anywhere.

But I'd like to see more programmers write correct/OTP compliant code.
I don't see that happening unless the interfaces to these core
behaviors are simplified and we can start to introduce these very
important (essential) concepts earlier in the learning process, and
with less head explosions.

Garrett



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list