Fw: OTP vs. non-OTP

[Inswitch Solutions - Erlang Evaluation]

My humble opinion as a newbie in Erlang.

In favour of reusability, Design Patterns (like OTP behaviours) resolve
common tasks in the very start of the Design phase and before implementation
phase.

Should I invest time to learn OTP (patterns)?
Having one problem if the time to resolve it is less than
learning about patterns, I'd say no.
Now I do, because there are few patterns to learn and to resolve more than
one common repeatitive problem. In my case, telecom.

The question is how much difficult to learn will become Erlang when more
patterns will be added ?
Furthermore,  how can knowledge be transfered in the best way ? Is it always
a matter of time and Design Patterns the media ?


 Eduardo Figoli
 INSwitch Solutions


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@REDACTED>
> To: <jocke@REDACTED>
> Cc: <erlang-questions@REDACTED>
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 1:44 PM
> Subject: Re: OTP vs. non-OTP
>
>
> > "Joakim G." <jocke@REDACTED> wrote:
> >
> > > 2) Only a handful of people seems to be able to grasp all what OTP has
> > >     to offer.
> >
> > So is this a problem? I don't grasp all of OTP (e.g. I know nothing
> > about Corba).  Does that make OTP a bad thing?  How many people
> > understand (or even know) everything in libc, and they still use it.
> >
> >
> > > We should probably not burden the erlang-questions lists with further
> > > discussions about this.
> >
> > All right; in your office...  :)
> >
> >
> > /martin
>