Time for OTP to be Renamed?

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Time for OTP to be Renamed?

I have read http://www.erlang.org/doc/design_principles/spec_proc.html over the years and only opted to implement parts of all the overhead, i.e. to get the part of OTP functionality I really need and no more.

The gen_server is is top heavy and boring and remindes me of Java Enterprise Beans.

Agile and fun is better than top heavy and boring. In the short run, and in the long run.

But this is all me.

Den 16 feb 2014 11:40 skrev Vance Shipley <vances>:

> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:06:08AM +0100, Joacim Greben? wrote:
> }? I would only use the gen_server iff I needed hot code loading/upgrading.
> }? In the real world, and in the majority of cases, that seldom is needed.
> }?
> }? IMHO and within my experience of course.
> Lest other, less experienced, readers get the impression that it is that
> simple let me just provide this pointer:
> ?? http://www.erlang.org/doc/design_principles/spec_proc.html 
> To write a program which will work (properly) in an OTP compliant system,
> you must receive and handle a number of system messages.? Without OTP
> compliance you have no supervision, debugging, release handling, observer
> and I don't know what else.? You are free to do so but I wouldn't recommend
> this route for anyone else who hasn't mastered the environment.
> --
> -Vance