4 ms·

Jane Street use OCaml https://www.janestreet.com/technology/ https://www.janestreet.com/technology/ Erlang was developed for Ericsson phone switches with a lar

Jane Street use OCaml https://www.janestreet.com/technology/ https://www.janestreet.com/technology/ Erlang was developed for Ericsson phone switches with a large proportion of uptime. Whatsapp also use Erlang.

mpweiher 10y ago
Of course Erlang is functional in the small and OO in the large..
- hota_mazi 10y ago
  Erlang has pretty much zero features usually associated with OO, which is not surprising since Erlang's creator once wrote "Why OO sucks"[1]. [1] http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/why_oo_sucks http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/why_oo_suck...
  - maze-le 10y ago
    I once heared a speech from Joe Armstrong, where he considered erlang the only true object oriented language... This was of course a little quip to the OOP community, but it has a certain truth in it. He argued, that the actor model is basically object orientation like it should have been done.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    If you look at early concepts for OO where objects were simulations of things (Smalltalk, Simula) and communicated via message passing, erlang's process and message passing model actually fits well within the OO-framework of thought at least with regards to application design. What it's missing are syntax/semantics based on class hierarchies and such from OO languages like Java and C++, which isn't a bad thing.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    "Joe Armstrong: Smalltalk got a lot of the things right. So if your question is about what I think about object oriented programming, I sort of changed my mind over that. I wrote a an article, a blog thing, years ago - Why object oriented programming is silly. I mainly wanted to provoke people with it. They had a quite interesting response to that and I managed to annoy a lot of people, which was part of the intention actually. I started wondering about what object oriented programming was and I thought Erlang wasn't object oriented, it was a functional programming language. Then, my thesis supervisor said "But you're wrong, Erlang is extremely object oriented". He said object oriented languages aren't object oriented. I might think, though I'm not quite sure if I believe this or not, but Erlang might be the only object oriented language because the 3 tenets of object oriented programming are that it's based on message passing, that you have isolation between objects and have polymorphism. ..." Read the rest. It's good. https://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop/ https://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop/
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Well if you want to go that way ;-) jokingly Erlang is the only true OO language implementing Alan Kay's idea of what "Object Oriented" means -- passing messages between isolated components. I've heard of inheritance as a corrupting influence which has taken over and corrupted OO for years/ Funny enough, even most OO folks eventually realized that and moved to banish inheritance as a viable pattern.
erk__ 10y ago
Facebook also use OCaml for messenger.

mpweiher 10y ago

Of course Erlang is functional in the small and OO in the large..

hota_mazi 10y ago
Erlang has pretty much zero features usually associated with OO, which is not surprising since Erlang's creator once wrote "Why OO sucks"[1]. [1] http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/why_oo_sucks http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/why_oo_suck...
- maze-le 10y ago
  I once heared a speech from Joe Armstrong, where he considered erlang the only true object oriented language... This was of course a little quip to the OOP community, but it has a certain truth in it. He argued, that the actor model is basically object orientation like it should have been done.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  If you look at early concepts for OO where objects were simulations of things (Smalltalk, Simula) and communicated via message passing, erlang's process and message passing model actually fits well within the OO-framework of thought at least with regards to application design. What it's missing are syntax/semantics based on class hierarchies and such from OO languages like Java and C++, which isn't a bad thing.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  "Joe Armstrong: Smalltalk got a lot of the things right. So if your question is about what I think about object oriented programming, I sort of changed my mind over that. I wrote a an article, a blog thing, years ago - Why object oriented programming is silly. I mainly wanted to provoke people with it. They had a quite interesting response to that and I managed to annoy a lot of people, which was part of the intention actually. I started wondering about what object oriented programming was and I thought Erlang wasn't object oriented, it was a functional programming language. Then, my thesis supervisor said "But you're wrong, Erlang is extremely object oriented". He said object oriented languages aren't object oriented. I might think, though I'm not quite sure if I believe this or not, but Erlang might be the only object oriented language because the 3 tenets of object oriented programming are that it's based on message passing, that you have isolation between objects and have polymorphism. ..." Read the rest. It's good. https://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop/ https://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop/
rdtsc 10y ago
Well if you want to go that way ;-) jokingly Erlang is the only true OO language implementing Alan Kay's idea of what "Object Oriented" means -- passing messages between isolated components. I've heard of inheritance as a corrupting influence which has taken over and corrupted OO for years/ Funny enough, even most OO folks eventually realized that and moved to banish inheritance as a viable pattern.

erk__ 10y ago

Facebook also use OCaml for messenger.