[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Sun Feb 16 12:41:58 CET 2014
Note. I love the Erlang SDK (just trying avoid the *TP word to see how it feels) and use it heavily. It is just the gen_server that takes away the fun. We need more fun and not less.
Den 16 feb 2014 12:28 skrev =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Joacim_Greben=F6?= <>:
> I have read http://www.erlang.org/doc/design_principles/spec_proc.html over the years and only opted to implement parts of all the overhead, i.e. to get the part of OTP functionality I really need and no more.
> The gen_server is is top heavy and boring and remindes me of Java Enterprise Beans.
> Agile and fun is better than top heavy and boring. In the short run, and in the long run.
> But this is all me.
> Den 16 feb 2014 11:40 skrev Vance Shipley <>:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:06:08AM +0100, Joacim Grebenö wrote:
> > } I would only use the gen_server iff I needed hot code loading/upgrading.
> > } In the real world, and in the majority of cases, that seldom is needed.
> > }
> > } IMHO and within my experience of course.
> > Lest other, less experienced, readers get the impression that it is that
> > simple let me just provide this pointer:
> > http://www.erlang.org/doc/design_principles/spec_proc.html
> > To write a program which will work (properly) in an OTP compliant system,
> > you must receive and handle a number of system messages. Without OTP
> > compliance you have no supervision, debugging, release handling, observer
> > and I don't know what else. You are free to do so but I wouldn't recommend
> > this route for anyone else who hasn't mastered the environment.
> > --
> > -Vance
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions