[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Thu Feb 13 18:47:47 CET 2014
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM, kraythe . <kraythe@REDACTED> wrote:
> I have told you my "green" impressions of OTP and you can dismiss them if it
> make you more comfortable but it wont change the fact that others will have
> those feelings and many will not get on the list and go further. They will
> simply move to Ruby, Scala, Node.js, Clojure, or something else. If our
> attitude is "I didn't want you in the community anyway!" then Erlang will be
> the next Smalltalk or Lisp. Of academic and little more than that in
Robert, you're completely on point here and there are many in the
Erlang community who are in sync with you.
I will say that, in defense of our more stodgy brethren , the sort
of push you're seeing here has, I believe, contributed significantly
to the quality of Erlang. You have to jump over some *very high*
barriers to get things moved in this ecosystem. The upside is that the
community doesn't spend a lot of cycles solving problems that aren't
glaringly obvious. This "OTP" topic isn't a glaringly obvious problem
to many people. The complexity of the gen_server and supervisor
interfaces -- not glaringly obvious, apparently.
Line numbers missing from stack traces, glaring.
No maps, glaring.
And look how long those took to land.
But as a result, Erlang doesn't face the problems of feature bloat (I
think of Ruby) and ongoing migration issues (I think of Python) that
other languages face. I for one would gladly take the problems we're
discussing here, which I think are relatively small, as a price for
this much more useful conservative mindset that has produced today's
Erlang. Eh, just my point of view.
 Old guard, don't fret -- you're cool. Hard core old school cool.
More information about the erlang-questions