[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?

[Miles Fidelman]

Vance Shipley wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22:54PM -0600, kraythe . wrote:
> }  Not so much the issue of OTP as a name but the general impression of
> }  "adoption? bah humbug ... if they don't like it they all suck and we
> }  don't care." Sounds like a disaster of a business decision to me.
>
> Erlang has always been a very practical thing.  It is a functional
> language, but not purely so.  It's developers have always chosen the
> path which made sense for it's commercial use.  It's not a language
> made to teach computer science courses, it's made to be as useful as
> possible to build real life commercial applications.  It's rooted in
> industry.  You're questioning the business decisions of a company which
> has been at this for over two decades.
>
> }  Im not so sure its going to be easy to staff or finance a project on a
> }  language that has 1) tools that need work, 2) a limited trained staff 3) a
> }  community that cares little about language adoption. It could be that
> }  Erlang becomes another Lisp for me. A language I think rocks but is
> }  entirely impractical in the business world.
>
> My greatest wish is that any potential competitor of mine believes all
> of the FUD above.
>
> The truth is (my competitors shouldn't trust me, I'm probably lying) that
> Erlang/OTP is a very practical platform for many business applications.
>

I like the way you think!  (On a lighter note: http://xkcd.com/1330/)




-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra