[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Joe Armstrong
erlang@REDACTED
Thu Feb 13 20:18:01 CET 2014
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:28 PM, kraythe . <kraythe@REDACTED> wrote:
> Why not learn instead of sell?
>
>
> Because the bank wont take "I learned Erlang this month" in lie of my car
> payment or mortgage.
>
Is their some X for which if you say "I learnt X this month" then a bank
will give you money? Please tell me what X is
> Because innovations are rarely created for the purposes of "learn, not
> sell." Erlang itself was created to Sell, be under no misunderstanding. If
> Ericson couldn't make a case to the "sellers" then the language wouldn't
> have powered their switch.
>
Erlang was used to power the AXD301 (the breakthrough project) because all
other projects had
failed. It was a case of "last man standing" or "save me I'm drowning"
Erlang spread outside Ericsson, because Ericsson banned it subsequently it
became open source.
> Because capitalism and libertarianism work and communism and socialism
> eventually run out of other people's money. And because I don't want to be
> someone living on someone else's dime. I like to create, innovate, invent
> and get paid for it. That lets me provide a better life for my family.
>
Quite right - all other things being equal the companies that use Erlang as
their core technology
will bankrupt their competitors - Software Darwinism.
Anyway companies sell products and don't give a damn what they are
implemented in.
When I buy a pen or pair of boot I don't care what programming language its
implemented it.
Programmers/managers/... are subject to a baggage of "my language is better
than yours"
noise - and it is just that - noise.
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating" - what you have to do is
1) have a idea for a compelling product
2) build a prototype in some language
3) sell the idea/thing/prototype
4) make and sell the product
5) earn money from the product sales
6) have good luck
Of these I guess 2) is the easiest
/Joe
>
> *Robert Simmons Jr. MSc. - Lead Java Architect @ EA*
> *Author of: Hardcore Java (2003) and Maintainable Java (2012)*
> *LinkedIn: **http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39
> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39>*
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, John Kemp <john@REDACTED> wrote:
>
>> On 02/13/2014 11:44 AM, kraythe . wrote:
>>
>>> Cant agree with you John.
>>>
>>
>> That's fine :)
>>
>>
>> In an organization you cant simply do what you
>>> want and shrug.
>>> If I tried that in any of the big organizations i have
>>> been involved with my optimal case is being fired.
>>>
>>
>> If I need to "convince" someone about the tech I want to use then I
>> either wouldn't use that tech and would use what they wanted instead, or I
>> would quit.
>>
>> It's absolutely the case that if you are driven by "social context" (by
>> that I mean, roughly, "other people's concerns") alone, you won't choose
>> Erlang.
>>
>> Although I would often choose Erlang for myself, I would often choose
>> another language if I had a programmer of that language to work with, and a
>> tight deadline.
>>
>> In my opinion, professional software developers should choose the best
>> tool for the job -- and the job often includes more than the problem at
>> hand, true. I like to make satisfied customers.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps if you own
>>> the company you can. But then that relegates Erlang to niche. Makes the
>>> old timers feel pretty superior
>>>
>>
>> As I've said, you can *choose* whatever language you like, and barring
>> the edge cases, you'll be able to build a workable, relatively scalable
>> solution.
>>
>>
>> but is a horrible waste of what appears
>>> to me to be a very useful language. Also if you go that tact there is no
>>> more point of arguing Erlang vs Scala or vs any language anymore. Erlang
>>> will become like Smalltalk. Useful and cool for the old timers but
>>> virtually IRRELEVANT in the IT industry.
>>>
>>
>> Erlang makes efficient use of computing resources, specifically in
>> distributed environments. It does several other clever things. It's also
>> hard to learn (for some programmers) and doesn't come with a ready "market"
>> of/for proficient software developers. But those who learn it tend to
>> understand the problems which Erlang is good at solving. And they
>> understand why the language choices made in Erlang might be made, in which
>> case, they will often understand other languages better than average
>> devlopers too.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Furthermore, if you argue you don't care about adoption then the
>>> discussion is moot with you. What
>>>
>>
>> I will continue to explain what I have observed about the advantages of
>> Erlang to those who will listen :)
>>
>>
>> it will mean is whomever is on your
>>> development staff writing Erlang you better be open to paying them
>>> whatever they want and letting them get away with about anything because
>>> replacing them would be nearly impossible.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, I usually work with people who are not in position to
>> understand why one might use Erlang.
>>
>> Imagine that you have been initiated into a secret group of people who
>> will help give you an advantage in your software projects that so few have.
>> How could you use those skills?
>>
>>
>> Often many tech people cant
>>> see past "oooh list comprehensions !!!!!!" to the actual business behind
>>> it and without the business none of us get paid. That is not something
>>> you can take to management and sell.
>>>
>>
>> Why not learn instead of sell?
>>
>> - johnk
>>
>>>
>>> *Robert Simmons Jr. MSc. - Lead Java Architect @ EA*
>>> /Author of: Hardcore Java (2003) and Maintainable Java (2012)/
>>> /LinkedIn: //http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:33 AM, John Kemp <john@REDACTED
>>> <mailto:john@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 11:20 AM, kraythe . <kraythe@REDACTED
>>> <mailto:kraythe@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>>
>>> /Java as a language is big and complex, because it has a
>>>> lot of concepts directly inside the language./
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahh but here you are wrong. Java itself is analogous to Erlang
>>>> without OTP. you don't HAVE to use the JDK libraries beyond
>>>> java.lang. You would be a bit crazy reproducing the wheel if you
>>>> did so but it is not a requirement of writing java. In fact many
>>>> Java controlled micro devices only allow a very small subset of
>>>> the JDK to be used. So there is essentially no difference.
>>>>
>>>> So Elang is to Java as the Java Development Kit is to the Open
>>>> Telecom Platform. And there is where we have the "marketing"
>>>> disconnect. Its not about changing functionality or a triviality
>>>> to be scoffed over. If we start with the premise that we want more
>>>> developers to learn and use Erlang then we have to consider how
>>>> the language and its nomenclature comes across to our audience.
>>>> You don't name a language the Scalable High Integration Technology
>>>> because the impression it leaves with adopters is ... unfortunate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why start with that premise instead of starting with the premise
>>> that developers should try to understand what is useful to them?
>>> That has nothing to do with marketing, and everything to do with
>>> software developers understanding their craft better.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So if you DON'T care about people adopting the language, then the
>>>> discussion is academic and simply, as one reply put it, a waste of
>>>> time. Of course if you don't care about adoption then you are
>>>> wasting your time here because you wont be able to staff a
>>>> development crew, replace developers that leave or push the
>>>> language into an organization which isn't currently using it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who is "you" in this case? Does the "Erlang community" want to get
>>> the language adopted more? Perhaps. Why would that matter to the
>>> Erlang community - how do they benefit? Why should those who already
>>> know and benefit from Erlang not simply continue to do so?
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you DO care about people adopting the language you have to
>>>> consider its marketing. If I many were to take Erlang to
>>>> management and propose it for a product the management would see
>>>> "Open Telecom Platform", object that the company isn't a telecom
>>>> company and that Erlang is mainly for telecom and that would be
>>>> the end of that. In fact, if you really care about adoption you
>>>> are better off renaming it "Fred" than leaving it as "Open Telecom
>>>> Platform".
>>>>
>>>
>>> People reject languages for all kinds of strange reasons. And it's
>>> the case that in many cases you can simply choose "a language you
>>> like" and then *make* it work for what you want to do. After all,
>>> computers have particular resources available to them, and a
>>> language well-adapted to its environment should support adequate
>>> performance for most applications. The distinction between threading
>>> in Ruby and "event-driven" in Node is largely meaningless, for
>>> example. The real questions are things like "how well does your
>>> VM/compiler exploit computer hardware resources on the platform
>>> you're using". Most developers don't understand this, so they argue
>>> about threads vs. processes vs. events without understanding what
>>> might actually be the critical differences regarding the performance
>>> they say they want.
>>>
>>> Naming won't fix that. And management will never get that. You need
>>> people to understand what they are doing. Or not. After all, you can
>>> largely do what you like and apart from at the edges, it will likely
>>> work.
>>>
>>> - johnk
>>>
>>>
>>>> Naming matters and it is also pretty easy to fix.
>>>>
>>>> *Robert Simmons Jr. MSc. - Lead Java Architect @ EA*
>>>> /Author of: Hardcore Java (2003) and Maintainable Java (2012)/
>>>> /LinkedIn: //http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Anthony Ramine <n.oxyde@REDACTED
>>>> <mailto:n.oxyde@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's a *HUGE* difference. Erlang as a language is very
>>>> small; OTP is a very complex piece of software, as is BEAM.
>>>> The three shouldn't be conflated.
>>>>
>>>> Java as a language is big and complex, because it has a lot of
>>>> concepts directly inside the language.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anthony Ramine
>>>>
>>>> Le 13 févr. 2014 à 15:59, Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED
>>>> <mailto:vladdu55@REDACTED>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Anthony Ramine
>>>> <n.oxyde@REDACTED <mailto:n.oxyde@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>>> >> Java without OOP is a different language.
>>>> >> Erlang without OTP is still Erlang.
>>>> >
>>>> > IMHO the only difference is that OTP is implemented as a
>>>> library and
>>>> > doesn't have dedicated language syntax. I make difference
>>>> between OTP
>>>> > as design/system building guidelines and its implementation.
>>>> The
>>>> > former is more like OOP for Java. The latter is more like
>>>> the JDK.
>>>> >
>>>> > /Vlad
>>>> >
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Anthony Ramine
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Le 13 févr. 2014 à 15:21, Vlad Dumitrescu
>>>> <vladdu55@REDACTED <mailto:vladdu55@REDACTED>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Benoit Chesneau
>>>> <bchesneau@REDACTED <mailto:bchesneau@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>>> >>>> I also say Erlang/OTP and often I add to the one that ask
>>>> that OTP is
>>>> >>>> a framework, but then people are more puzzled than they
>>>> were before.
>>>> >>>> Maybe rust did the right things by clearly separating
>>>> the language
>>>> >>>> and the runtime from the standard library and other libs ?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I would say that OTP is to Erlang what OOP is to Java. You
>>>> can write
>>>> >>> Java programs that are not object-oriented, but why choose
>>>> Java for
>>>> >>> that in the first place?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> OTP is in my opinion a design philosophy that guides us
>>>> when it comes
>>>> >>> to structuring and developing distributed fault-tolerant
>>>> systems. It
>>>> >>> comes with library support that is intimately tied to the
>>>> Erlang
>>>> >>> libraries: the most basic Erlang apps (kernel and stdlib)
>>>> are also the
>>>> >>> ones that implement the OTP concepts. Even more, Erlang
>>>> code is
>>>> >>> structured as applications, and an "application" is an OTP
>>>> concept!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I can only see meaning in trying to separate the language
>>>> from OTP
>>>> >>> either as an academic exercise or in order to implement a
>>>> different
>>>> >>> language on the beam runtime and the new concepts would
>>>> collide
>>>> >>> implementation-wise with OTP. Or one wants to create OTP
>>>> 2.0 without
>>>> >>> interference with 1.0.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> regards,
>>>> >>> Vlad
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>>> >>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>>> <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>>>>
>>>> >>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140213/ed121d5f/attachment.htm>
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list