[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Thu Feb 13 19:25:57 CET 2014
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Benoit Chesneau <>wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
> > On 13 Feb 2014, at 13:05, Loïc Hoguin <> wrote:
> >>>> No I'm serious, you can use Erlang without OTP.
> >>> maybe but who is doing it today? Or rather what are the selling points
> >>> of just using Erlang without OTP?
> >> [...]
> >> Or if I wanted to use Erlang for writing small administration scripts
> that's probably also what I would do, as the fast boot is a really
> important feature there.
> > It is such a jolly good idea that Joe spends a whole appendix in his
> book about doing just that.
> > (Appendix 3, "A Simple Execution Environment".)
Which boots in 20 ms (on the same machine OTP takes 1.1 seconds)
Note that OTP was designed for systems that run for ever - not shell
scripts. 1.1 seconds
amortized over a few years is not a problem - so there is not attempt to
The 20ms that my stand-alone system takes *was* optimised for quick start
and could be
made even quicker - but this would require hard work.
> > Grüße, Carsten
> But who is doing it today? The question stands. I mean OK, eventually
> you can just use Erlang without all the OTP (even if it requires a new
> boot script), but people don't come on erlang because of the language
> but due to OTP. And few knows you can use Erlang the other way. OTP
> is the selling point right now. (Not saying it should be)
> 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 ?
> - benoit
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions