[erlang-questions] modular otp concerns
Wed Feb 19 11:20:58 CET 2014
Hello Dear Erlangers!
I (as Erlang programmer and architect) do not see a single reason to do
something dramatic with BEAUTIFUL OTP. It is great as it is.
Any extra stuff that might be needed for me is coming via rebar - another
So, everything about Erlang is just f****g amazing for me and my team!
Last few days I saw proposals to:
1. Rename OTP - that is just makes no sense at all...
2. Question where there is a need in Erlang - .....
3. Proposals to split?! Erlang and OTP...
Could it be that I missed something very important in Erlang life while me
and my team where coding in "old good" Erlang/OTP?
Why don't I feel "the need" to change something in Erlang?
Because of growing Erlang popularity new stream of devs bring
"*great"*ideas out of php/java/rubby word to us?
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED>wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Richard A. O'Keefe <ok@REDACTED>wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED>
>> > One thought about this: there are several levels of modularity that
>> could be enabled, but as a first step I think that what could be separated
>> are the telecom-specific libraries (asn1, cos*, megaco, diameter). Snmp is
>> on the fence.
>> What makes you think ASN.1 is telecom-specific?
> Sorry, it was just a reflection of me spending too many years in the
> telecomi industry :-) The orber support isn't specific to it either. The
> right word would have been "enterprise-y".
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions