Support for non-unique process labels?
Mon May 10 11:52:34 CEST 2021
On 10/05/2021 11:37, Nicolas Martyanoff wrote:
> At the end of the day, the answers here remind me of the Common Lisp
> community. "Everything is fine, if you do not like it the problem is
> you". After some time, people who get fed up leave, and the language
> slowly dies.
Every time someone complains about what Erlang/OTP is missing, and the
community explains why things are the way they are, the person
complaining ends up saying this.
You cannot move forward without understanding where you are. We are not
saying everything is fine, we are attempting to provide insight into why
things are the way they are.
The only languages that are able to cater to just about every use case
are the ones that have either tons of users or have a strong corporate
backing, or both. Other languages have to make choices and prioritize
some things over others.
I don't think the choices that the OTP team has made are wrong. I have
been working with Erlang since R13 and there is no doubt in my mind that
OTP-24 is immensely better than R13 used to be (R13: Unicode? What's
that?). That doesn't mean everything has been fixed of course. But a lot
of work has already been done to improve Erlang/OTP in the direction you
wish for it to go.
The fact that we largely went from "write a NIF to C libs" to "write an
Erlang lib to implement the missing bits" is a strong testament to that.
All that remains is making sure those missing bits make it into the
standard library, rather than external libs.
More information about the erlang-questions