Support for non-unique process labels?

Loïc Hoguin essen@REDACTED
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.


Loïc Hoguin

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list