[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Mon Feb 17 10:48:24 CET 2014
Why? Why does this thread exists?
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Miles Fidelman
> Vance Shipley wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22:54PM -0600, kraythe . wrote:
>> } Not so much the issue of OTP as a name but the general impression of
>> } "adoption? bah humbug ... if they don't like it they all suck and we
>> } don't care." Sounds like a disaster of a business decision to me.
>> Erlang has always been a very practical thing. It is a functional
>> language, but not purely so. It's developers have always chosen the
>> path which made sense for it's commercial use. It's not a language
>> made to teach computer science courses, it's made to be as useful as
>> possible to build real life commercial applications. It's rooted in
>> industry. You're questioning the business decisions of a company which
>> has been at this for over two decades.
>> } Im not so sure its going to be easy to staff or finance a project on a
>> } language that has 1) tools that need work, 2) a limited trained staff
>> 3) a
>> } community that cares little about language adoption. It could be that
>> } Erlang becomes another Lisp for me. A language I think rocks but is
>> } entirely impractical in the business world.
>> My greatest wish is that any potential competitor of mine believes all
>> of the FUD above.
>> The truth is (my competitors shouldn't trust me, I'm probably lying) that
>> Erlang/OTP is a very practical platform for many business applications.
> I like the way you think! (On a lighter note: http://xkcd.com/1330/)
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions