[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Fri Feb 14 00:14:44 CET 2014
I'm sorry for adding to a thread so long that the scroll bar on my
browser broke and I had to revert to Mutt.
The C language had for many years a separate set of tools called
"libraries". At some stage a set of these became "standard" and were
incorporated into the ANSI definition of the language. The libraries
still exist, with their original weird names. However we don't speak
of C / stdlib. We speak of C99, perhaps.
It's not about killing OTP and/or changing its name to something
sexier. It's about accepting that this is a standard part of the
language and can be removed from the front of the stage.
Simpler is almost always better.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Ivan Uemlianin <> wrote:
> Dear Loïc
> I need to do some detailed experiments with release packaging & upgrading. I can certainly see that upgrades affecting how state is represented might be simpler done offline.
> Best wishes
> festina lente
>> On 13 Feb 2014, at 21:54, Loïc Hoguin <> wrote:
>> They are very hard to get right. Upgrading a live system is really difficult, even with OTP. There are many ways things can go wrong, from the new code breaking things to your state being partially lost (worse than losing all of it!) while upgrading it.
>> It requires a lot of testing to get right, and as such is eating up a lot of time. A 2 minutes change can easily take you 2 hours to test and make sure the upgrade will actually work as intended.
>>> On 02/13/2014 10:51 PM, Ivan Uemlianin wrote:
>>> Dear Loïc
>>> Please pardon my hopping over from another thread.
>>>> On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:54, Loïc Hoguin <> wrote:
>>>> ... few people use release upgrades for example...
>>> What are the good reasons for not using release upgrades? I am full of n00bish enthusiasm for them.
>>> festina lente
>> Loïc Hoguin
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions