| Author |
Message |
|
| ingela at erix.ericsson.s |
 Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:38 pm |
 |
|
|
Guest
|
James Hague wrote:
> This brings up an entirely different issue. The OTP team is doing a good
> job with bug fixes and general maintenance, but general improvements,
> significant and otherwise, seem to have ground to a halt, or at least be in
> a state of confusion. This has come up several times now. It may just be
> that Erlang is good enough for the places it is used, but it would be nice
> to see some more active development. A number of improvements have come up
> and never seem to go anywhere.
We do a whole lot of new development, but the Erlang/OTP team is a
quite small team and we have to priorities. Our development is entirely
financed by license fees. So what our paying customers consider most
important is generally what we consider most important. New language
features are seldom on the top of their list. Erlang/OTP is a
commercial product, that happens too also be open source. The
requirements on commercial product are high. We always need to think
about backward compatibility and robustness. We can never just add
contributions without somebody checking what they do and making sure
that they get tested. (Adding things also means work maintaining them.)
Some of the ideas that emerge on the list are good ideas others are
not. The ideas that we think are good we try to fit into our
development plan if possible. For example Raimo is now putting some
new notation in to io_lib as he was doing other development in io_lib
anyway.
But some things may have a very big impact and are not things
that you just do. We have to make sure that if we do something, like
for instance introducing some kind of new "struct", that it is properly
thought through, so we do not get stuck with some new hack that we can
not get rid off. Also suggested improvements may impact not only the
language or the specific module where the change was suggested but
also tools and other applications.
Also we have to devote some of our time to support, the paying
customers generate quite a substantial amount of support work.
So I assure you we are constantly making improvements, however time,
number of team members and money will always limit what is plausible
to accomplish.
/Ingela - OTP project manager
P.S Considering you usually get what you pay for and open source customers
do not pay anything I think they have a fairly good deal ;)
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| etxuwig at etxb.ericsson. |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 1:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Ingela Anderton wrote:
>P.S Considering you usually get what you pay for and open
>source customers do not pay anything I think they have a
>fairly good deal ;)
I don't want to nit-pick too much, but I would argue that
many of the people on this list put significant time and
effort into finding ways to improve OTP, and sometimes even
handing you components *for free* that can be added to OTP
with a fairly small effort on your part.
So your argument may just as well be reversed. ;)
I think much of this boils down to the issue of providing
feedback about what is actually going on, which ideas are
rejected because they're not good enough (and why!), which
ideas are basically accepted, but not implemented due to
time and resource constraints (and then how others may help)
/Uffe
--
Ulf Wiger, Senior Specialist,
/ / / Architecture & Design of Carrier-Class Software
/ / / Strategic Product & System Management
/ / / Ericsson AB, Connectivity and Control Nodes
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ingela at erix.ericsson.s |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 2:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ulf Wiger wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Ingela Anderton wrote:
>
> >P.S Considering you usually get what you pay for and open
> >source customers do not pay anything I think they have a
> >fairly good deal 
>
> I don't want to nit-pick too much, but I would argue that
> many of the people on this list put significant time and
> effort into finding ways to improve OTP, and sometimes even
> handing you components *for free* that can be added to OTP
> with a fairly small effort on your part.
>
> So your argument may just as well be reversed. ;)
We do absolutely appreciate all the time and effort people take to try
and improve Erlang/OTP. I am not saying that open source users are
unimportant. We think they are important. Part of the open source idea
of course is that instead off giving us money for our product we get
feedback, code contributions and new ideas, and hence it is a good deal
for both us and the open source users. But that does not change the
fact that the commercial version is what keeps this project alive.
> I think much of this boils down to the issue of providing
> feedback about what is actually going on, which ideas are
> rejected because they're not good enough (and why!), which
> ideas are basically accepted, but not implemented due to
> time and resource constraints (and then how others may help)
Alas this also takes a lot of time. I do not think that we have
found a good solution to handle this yet. It seems to be evident that
the open source community would like to have more feedback. It is also
quite evident too me, that all suggested solutions so far adds too much
overhead for us, at least for our current situation.
--
/Ingela - OTP project manager
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| matthias at corelatus.se |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 2:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James Hague wrote:
> 1. integer_to_list and list_to_integer are already bifs. It's cleaner to
> have arity two versions with the same names than it is to have completely
> different functions in different modules.
Could just as well argue that making integer_to_list a BIF was a
mistake and that adding even more BIFs makes the mess even bigger.
> general improvements, significant and otherwise, seem to have
> ground to a halt, or at least be in a state of confusion.
R9B included native compilation. That's significant by any definition.
It has been more than three years since Erlang went open source and
the OTP group's efforts are still outclassing everyone else. Quietly.
It'd really make my day if someone I've never heard of before turned
up on the mailing list and said "I've implemented an SS7 stack using
the bit syntax, it's available at ftp.wherever.net". I realise that's
unlikely, so I'll settle for falling off my chair the day someone
_starts_ a discussion about altering the language (replacing records,
adding a type checker, reorganising all the libraries) by providing a
prototype implementation of their latest and greatest idea*.
Matthias
* This does sometimes happen, e.g. Richard Carlsson's hierarchical modules.
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| nick at erix.ericsson.se |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hello!
> > general improvements, significant and otherwise, seem to have
> > ground to a halt, or at least be in a state of confusion.
I'd like to add that some new features/improvements may not be visible to
all users since they simply don't use "every" application. Still, these
changes can be very important for both licensed & open source users. Some
improvements are a bit harder to discover (e.g. performance boost, less
memory usage etc), unless one read the release notes carefully.
It's easier to notice new applications, but they're probably not equally
important to all users. For example, since R7B we've introduced:
* et
* observer
* megaco
* webtool
* CORBA applications (cosEventDomain, cosFileTransfer, cosNotification,
cosProperty and cosTime).
.. and there are more to come.
/Niclas
> R9B included native compilation. That's significant by any definition.
>
> It has been more than three years since Erlang went open source and
> the OTP group's efforts are still outclassing everyone else. Quietly.
>
> It'd really make my day if someone I've never heard of before turned
> up on the mailing list and said "I've implemented an SS7 stack using
> the bit syntax, it's available at ftp.wherever.net". I realise that's
> unlikely, so I'll settle for falling off my chair the day someone
> _starts_ a discussion about altering the language (replacing records,
> adding a type checker, reorganising all the libraries) by providing a
> prototype implementation of their latest and greatest idea*.
>
> Matthias
>
> * This does sometimes happen, e.g. Richard Carlsson's hierarchical modules.
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| luke at bluetail.com |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ingela Anderton <ingela_at_erix.ericsson.se> writes:
> > I think much of this boils down to the issue of providing
> > feedback about what is actually going on, which ideas are
> > rejected because they're not good enough (and why!), which
> > ideas are basically accepted, but not implemented due to
> > time and resource constraints (and then how others may help)
>
> Alas this also takes a lot of time. I do not think that we have
> found a good solution to handle this yet. It seems to be evident that
> the open source community would like to have more feedback. It is also
> quite evident too me, that all suggested solutions so far adds too much
> overhead for us, at least for our current situation.
Maybe you just need to hire someone with an "internet loudmouth"
personality :-)
-Luke
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ulf.wiger at telia.com |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From: "Ingela Anderton" <ingela_at_erix.ericsson.se>
> > I think much of this boils down to the issue of providing
> > feedback about what is actually going on, which ideas are
> > rejected because they're not good enough (and why!), which
> > ideas are basically accepted, but not implemented due to
> > time and resource constraints (and then how others may help)
>
> Alas this also takes a lot of time. I do not think that we have
> found a good solution to handle this yet. It seems to be evident that
> the open source community would like to have more feedback. It is also
> quite evident too me, that all suggested solutions so far adds too much
> overhead for us, at least for our current situation.
I have no good solution, alas. I realise that part of the "problem"
is that you have to maintain a secure way of handling confidential
information about your paying customers. This is impossible at e.g.
SourceForge, which is otherwise a very nice environment for an
Open Source project. Also, the fact that we, your paying customers,
have rather extreme requirements on stability and backward
compatibility, means that you have to have very tight control of what
changes go into a certain release.
I think you need to have a ticket tracker that's capable of separating
open and confidential stuff, and simply generate listings of tickets,
open and closed. Ideally, paying customers could view their own
tickets as well as the public ones. Are you using the Bluetail Ticket
Tracker or some other Open Source tool? If so, it would be possible
for others to assist in developing this functionality.
I'm not aware of that many mission-critical middleware products that
are available as Open Source (at least not products that are more open
and "interactive" than OTP), so there are few references on how to
do this properly.
/Uffe
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| etxuwig at etxb.ericsson. |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 9 Apr 2003, Luke Gorrie wrote:
>Maybe you just need to hire someone with an "internet
>loudmouth" personality 
>
>-Luke
Why, are you looking for a new job, Luke? ;-)
/Uffe
--
Ulf Wiger, Senior Specialist,
/ / / Architecture & Design of Carrier-Class Software
/ / / Strategic Product & System Management
/ / / Ericsson AB, Connectivity and Control Nodes
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| eleberg at cbe.ericsson.s |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
> X-Authentication-Warning: cbe1066.al.sw.ericsson.se: etxuwig owned process
doing -bs
> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:31:30 +0200 (MEST)
> From: Ulf Wiger <etxuwig_at_etxb.ericsson.se>
> X-X-Sender: etxuwig_at_cbe1066
> To: Luke Gorrie <luke_at_bluetail.com>
> cc: erlang-questions_at_erlang.org
> Subject: Re: OTP development, was Re: Gaga about bifs
> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>
> On 9 Apr 2003, Luke Gorrie wrote:
>
> >Maybe you just need to hire someone with an "internet
> >loudmouth" personality
> >
> >-Luke
>
>
> Why, are you looking for a new job, Luke? ;-)
and, if so, does bluetail/alteon/nortel need a replacement?
bengt
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| luke at bluetail.com |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bengt Kleberg <eleberg_at_cbe.ericsson.se> writes:
> > On 9 Apr 2003, Luke Gorrie wrote:
> >
> > >Maybe you just need to hire someone with an "internet
> > >loudmouth" personality
> >
> > Why, are you looking for a new job, Luke? ;-)
No, but we loud-mouthes gotta look out for each other :-)
> and, if so, does bluetail/alteon/nortel need a replacement?
I certainly hope not -- but this is a different question ;-)
Cheers,
Luke
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| kostis at user.it.uu.se |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matthias Lang wrote:
>
> James Hague wrote:
> > general improvements, significant and otherwise, seem to have
> > ground to a halt, or at least be in a state of confusion.
>
> R9B included native compilation. That's significant by any definition.
>
> It has been more than three years since Erlang went open source and
> the OTP group's efforts are still outclassing everyone else. Quietly.
I do not want to argue with the above, but just for the record I
guess, I would like to point out that perhaps some other group is
mostly responsible for bringing native compilation to Erlang/OTP.
We, the HiPE group, of course very much appreciate the support and
enjoy the very close collaboration that we have with the OTP group
these days.
Kostis Sagonas
The HiPE group (http://www.csd.uu.se/projects/hipe/)
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| garry at sage.att.com |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matthias Lang <matthias_at_corelatus.se> wrote:
> It'd really make my day if someone I've never heard of before turned
> up on the mailing list and said "I've implemented an SS7 stack using
> the bit syntax, it's available at ftp.wherever.net". I realise that's
> unlikely, so I'll settle for falling off my chair the day someone
> _starts_ a discussion about altering the language (replacing records,
> adding a type checker, reorganising all the libraries) by providing a
> prototype implementation of their latest and greatest idea*.
has anyone thought about a process like the PEP process
used by python? it is described in detail at
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html ,
but briefly:
What is a PEP?
PEP stands for Python Enhancement Proposal. A PEP is a design
document providing information to the Python community, or
describing a new feature for Python. The PEP should provide a
concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for
the feature.
We intend PEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new
features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for
documenting the design decisions that have gone into Python. The
PEP author is responsible for building consensus within the
community and documenting dissenting opinions.
it seems to have worked out pretty well so far.
----
Garry Hodgson, Senior Hacker, AT&T Labs
Have you any idea why they're lying to you?
To your faces!
- Paul Kantner
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| eleberg at cbe.ericsson.s |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:15:58 -0400 (EDT)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Subject: Re: Re: OTP development, was Re: Gaga about bifs
> To: erlang-questions_at_erlang.org
> From: Garry Hodgson <garry_at_sage.att.com>
...deleted
> has anyone thought about a process like the PEP process
> used by python? it is described in detail at
> http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html ,
> but briefly:
>
> What is a PEP?
>
> PEP stands for Python Enhancement Proposal. A PEP is a design
> document providing information to the Python community, or
> describing a new feature for Python. The PEP should provide a
> concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for
> the feature.
>
> We intend PEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new
> features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for
> documenting the design decisions that have gone into Python. The
> PEP author is responsible for building consensus within the
> community and documenting dissenting opinions.
and then there is http://srfi.schemers.org/
it does the same thing for a community with a very large amount of
implementations. sort of opposite of erlang. however, there was a lot
of very knowledgable people that designed the srfi process.
bengt
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| james at dadgum.com |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ulf Wiger wrote:
>I'm not aware of that many mission-critical middleware products that
>are available as Open Source (at least not products that are more
>open and "interactive" than OTP), so there are few references on
>how to do this properly
That's a very good point, one that I hadn't thought about. Erlang is
odd in this respect, being so directly connected with commercial
products, but that's also maybe it's biggest advantage. I can
certain understand being conservative in some ways.
At the same time, the floating point improvements that went into R8
didn't follow this rule, at least it doesn't appear that they didn't
(someone correct me if I'm wrong). I was under the impression that
they were added specifically for the benefit of Wings3D.
James
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://m2f.sourceforge.net) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| wuji |
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:44 am |
|
|
|
User
Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Posts: 654
|
cell procedure was so difficult and expensive that most agree agree [h2]cheap Ralph Lauren[/h2] agree it is unlikely that it will be used as
way to cure HIV for the millions of others who who [h3]cheap Ralph Lauren[/h3] who are infected.Still, the hope that Brown's case could pave
way for a widely used cure remains. During his talk, talk, discount designer *beep* talk, Brown announced that he would be starting a foundation,
Timothy Ray Brown Foundation, in conjunction with the World AIDS AIDS replica designer *beep* AIDS Institute. This foundation, he said, would be the
one in the country dedicated solely to finding a cure cure [h2]Christian Louboutin Outlet[/h2] cure for HIV.Brown also urged leaders and other members of
scientific community to focus more funding and efforts specifically toward toward cheap Ralph Lauren toward finding a cure.Nebraska *beep* Mutilated in Anti-Gay Hate
Was Found Naked and Bloody After Intruders Carved Slurs Into Into cheap Christian Louboutin Into Her SkinBy MORGAN RADFORDJul. 24, 2012— Nebraska cops are |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
|
|
All times are GMT
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Stumble Upon
Technorati
