[erlang-questions] Erland users group (was re: languages in use? [was: Time for OTP to be Renamed?])

John Kemp <>
Sat Feb 15 17:07:49 CET 2014


Your examples are, I think, instructive:

On 02/15/2014 10:11 AM, mfidelman wrote:
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: John Kemp
> Date:02/15/2014 9:27 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Steve Vinoski
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Erland users group (was re: languages in
> use? [was: Time for OTP to be Renamed?])
>
> On 02/15/2014 09:06 AM, Steve Vinoski wrote:
>
> Well, a mechanism for increased interest and adoption is one way. An
> organization that dispels any myth that Erlang/OTP is "controlled" by
> Ericsson might be another benefit
> _______________________________________________
>
> Sun/Oracle - Java

The demise of Sun's software business can possibly be largely attributed 
to their failure to adequately share control over Java (see IBM's 
Hotspot, and then later Dalvik). And I will note there was the JCP, J2ME 
and lots of other attempts.

The language, far from fulfilling the promise of "write once, run 
anywhere", has instead become marked by proprietary, probably 
non-interoperable implementations instead (e.g. Dalvik VM has no 
relation to J2ME applications that were once -- relatively -- popular on 
other phones). Oracle being in control of Java (and MySQL) has led only 
to more forks due to the FUD created by a single company's potential 
control over the language specification.

> Microsoft - .NET

.NET adoption beyond the Windows platform has been largely nil (cough, 
Mono). .NET as a platform has succeeded because Microsoft itself 
provides excellent tools which enable all kinds of non-expert developers 
to create applications. And they are one of the only companies able to 
support a "tools" business - do they make a profit at it though.... I 
dunno?

>
> Doesn't seem to have impeded adoption.

Instructive examples, yes. But neither of them completely analagous to 
Erlang, and by the way, only somewhat related to my question about IEUG. 
I don't believe either that standadization is necessary or is 
unnecessary for Erlang. I was simply interested in the relationship of 
IEUG to Erlang and its growth.

Regards,

- johnk

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list