Re: Support for non-unique process labels?

> On 10. May 2021, at 07:21, Nicolas Martyanoff <[email protected]> wrote:

> As someone building a commercial project in Erlang, I can confirm that
> doing anything production-ready in Erlang requires (re)writing a *ton*
> of code which in other languages would be available in the standard
> library. And do not even get me started on the tooling (or more
> accurately lack thereof).

You seem to be very active writing extensions to standard library code in Erlang.

Why not just make a PR out of those and improve the ecosystem?

Referring to another recent thread: supervisors can indeed be improved but often people suggest “improvements” which break certain properties here … there is. A long history of “we need exponential backoff when initialising processes” which have been caused by misunderstandings of consequences.

> It is not a deal breaker, I can work around it and accept it because the
> language itself is very good, but denying this reality is not
> productive. This situation actively damages Erlang adoption.

I agree that the availability of many libraries (that don’t have to be inside OTP) which are making the life easier in many other languages is key to increasing adoption.  erlef.org <http://erlef.org/> is busy trying to improve things but our capacity for volunteer work is finite and could use help.

Best,
-- Peer