7 ms·

> In 1998 Ericsson decided to ban all use of Erlang. Does anyone know why?

by adamddev1 4y ago

doikor 4y ago
Easier to find C/C++ devs according to one friend who used to work there in early 2000s.
- bluGill 4y ago
  That is a cop out. You always need to train your people. I've been doing C++ for 20 years, and consider myself somewhat and expert, but if I join your team I will still need to learn a lot of things that are just how your team does it. If I also need to learn Erlang/java/go/ (pick any language I haven't used much) that only adds a short time. Even as complex as C++ is, I can train a great programmer C++ a lot faster than I can train a future great junior C++ programmer to be a great programmer. Yes you will encounter the rough edges of whatever language often in the first 5 years, but a great programmer will be great in any language quickly. You need one expert in the language on the team for the weird complex stuff, but most code isn't that complex.
  - sillysaurusx 4y ago
    I mean… sort of. It’d be like trying to write an ML stack in lisp circa 2023. Sure, you can find devs willing to learn it, but it’ll be at least two orders or magnitude easier to find python devs. I love lisp, but the thought of being forced to use it exclusively for ML makes me uneasy. And I’ve tried building lisp ML stacks. :)
    - sitkack 4y ago
      I’d probably use Hy and JAX, :) Should be beautiful.
      - sillysaurusx 4y ago
        Beautiful perhaps, but not productive for ML engineers who are joining the team and familiar with the standard stack. Sure, they can be retrained, but I feel that there’s a real cost to this, and it’s too tempting to handwave it away as “they should just learn.”
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- tiffanyh 4y ago
  C++ was all the rage in late 90s / early 00s.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    Java was all the rage then. C with classes was dominate (not to be confused with C++), but java was the rage. Just like today Rust is all the rage, but it isn't as popular as C++ in the real world.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      I remember that. What puzzled me that it was the time when software written in Java ran up to 100 time slower than native processes. Now it is not nearly as bad. I had very interesting reaction from CTO of one Telecom when I showed them a prototype running on PC handling the same amount of transactions without breaking sweat as their Java backend equivalent that ran on beefy HP servers.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        Java is a language designed so that IBM can shovel interchangeable programmers into a furnace and produce something functional. Once you start with that goal, all the compromises and quirks make more sense.
        hazn 4y ago
        Do you mean big red and not big blue with that statement? Also, this reads as unnecessary snide. Having a language that makes it easy to onboard new people is a major strength. A lot of Golangs success is attributed to that strength of the language.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        IMHO, modern IBM (inasmuch as it exists) is the textbook target for Java, from a professional services standpoint. And it's snide and isn't. There's a lot to be said of being able to shovel programmers into a furnace and produce something functional. Decreasing risk to timeline and of failure makes large project PMs very happy. And generally makes stakeholders happy, because things don't outright fail as often.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
stevan 4y ago
From Joe Armstrong's thesis (p. 6): > In February 1998 Erlang was banned for new product development within Ericsson—the main reason for the ban was that Ericsson wanted to be a consumer of sodware technologies rather than a producer. From Bjarne Däcker's thesis (2000, p. 37): > In February 1998, Erlang was banned within Ericsson Radio AB (ERA) for new product projects aimed for external customers because: > > “The selection of an implementation language implies a more long-term commitment than selection of processors and OS, due to the longer life cycle of implemented products. Use of a proprietary language, implies a continued effort to maintain and further develop the support and the development environment. It further implies that we cannot easily benefit from, and find synergy with, the evolution following the large scale deployment of globally used languages.” [Ri98]
- christophilus 4y ago
  > sodware This made me giggle.
  - numbsafari 4y ago
    When it comes to buy vs build, the grass _is_ always greener.
    - another2another 4y ago
      Then what you buy turns out to be not nearly as good as you thought, meanwhile lots of motivated open source developers are turning your homegrown build into something really game changing. Sod's Law.
- leoc 4y ago
  What I recall from Erlang writings and videos is that, basically, Ericsson's C++ developers didn't want their cheese moved and successfully deployed the obvious (and not obviously unreasonable) arguments about how C++ was the industry standard, as above. I think Armstrong also admitted that the Erlang crew had a bit of a cocky attitude and wasn't great at winning others over.
SanjayMehta 4y ago
Management decided it was easier to hire c++ programmers.
- rhodin 4y ago
  Yes, they built a platform Cello [0] that would allow for that if I remember correctly [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20170829230730/https://www.ericsson.com/res/thecompany/docs/publications/ericsson_review/1999/1999021.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170829230730/https://www.erics...
rr808 4y ago
I work on a project that uses a proprietary language. Its very good but its miserable to be the only place where its used. Tools are sloppy and old, no external documentation or videos, can't hire anyone who knows it, and the people on the team are half committed because they have to be but also want to keep with industry trends for their next job.
- layer8 4y ago
  There might be a case for open-sourcing it.

> In 1998 Ericsson decided to ban all use of Erlang. Does anyone know why?

doikor 4y ago

Easier to find C/C++ devs according to one friend who used to work there in early 2000s.

bluGill 4y ago
That is a cop out. You always need to train your people. I've been doing C++ for 20 years, and consider myself somewhat and expert, but if I join your team I will still need to learn a lot of things that are just how your team does it. If I also need to learn Erlang/java/go/ (pick any language I haven't used much) that only adds a short time. Even as complex as C++ is, I can train a great programmer C++ a lot faster than I can train a future great junior C++ programmer to be a great programmer. Yes you will encounter the rough edges of whatever language often in the first 5 years, but a great programmer will be great in any language quickly. You need one expert in the language on the team for the weird complex stuff, but most code isn't that complex.
- sillysaurusx 4y ago
  I mean… sort of. It’d be like trying to write an ML stack in lisp circa 2023. Sure, you can find devs willing to learn it, but it’ll be at least two orders or magnitude easier to find python devs. I love lisp, but the thought of being forced to use it exclusively for ML makes me uneasy. And I’ve tried building lisp ML stacks. :)
  - sitkack 4y ago
    I’d probably use Hy and JAX, :) Should be beautiful.
    - sillysaurusx 4y ago
      Beautiful perhaps, but not productive for ML engineers who are joining the team and familiar with the standard stack. Sure, they can be retrained, but I feel that there’s a real cost to this, and it’s too tempting to handwave it away as “they should just learn.”
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tiffanyh 4y ago
C++ was all the rage in late 90s / early 00s.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Java was all the rage then. C with classes was dominate (not to be confused with C++), but java was the rage. Just like today Rust is all the rage, but it isn't as popular as C++ in the real world.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    I remember that. What puzzled me that it was the time when software written in Java ran up to 100 time slower than native processes. Now it is not nearly as bad. I had very interesting reaction from CTO of one Telecom when I showed them a prototype running on PC handling the same amount of transactions without breaking sweat as their Java backend equivalent that ran on beefy HP servers.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Java is a language designed so that IBM can shovel interchangeable programmers into a furnace and produce something functional. Once you start with that goal, all the compromises and quirks make more sense.
      - hazn 4y ago
        Do you mean big red and not big blue with that statement? Also, this reads as unnecessary snide. Having a language that makes it easy to onboard new people is a major strength. A lot of Golangs success is attributed to that strength of the language.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        IMHO, modern IBM (inasmuch as it exists) is the textbook target for Java, from a professional services standpoint. And it's snide and isn't. There's a lot to be said of being able to shovel programmers into a furnace and produce something functional. Decreasing risk to timeline and of failure makes large project PMs very happy. And generally makes stakeholders happy, because things don't outright fail as often.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

stevan 4y ago

From Joe Armstrong's thesis (p. 6): > In February 1998 Erlang was banned for new product development within Ericsson—the main reason for the ban was that Ericsson wanted to be a consumer of sodware technologies rather than a producer. From Bjarne Däcker's thesis (2000, p. 37): > In February 1998, Erlang was banned within Ericsson Radio AB (ERA) for new product projects aimed for external customers because: > > “The selection of an implementation language implies a more long-term commitment than selection of processors and OS, due to the longer life cycle of implemented products. Use of a proprietary language, implies a continued effort to maintain and further develop the support and the development environment. It further implies that we cannot easily benefit from, and find synergy with, the evolution following the large scale deployment of globally used languages.” [Ri98]

christophilus 4y ago
> sodware This made me giggle.
- numbsafari 4y ago
  When it comes to buy vs build, the grass _is_ always greener.
  - another2another 4y ago
    Then what you buy turns out to be not nearly as good as you thought, meanwhile lots of motivated open source developers are turning your homegrown build into something really game changing. Sod's Law.
leoc 4y ago
What I recall from Erlang writings and videos is that, basically, Ericsson's C++ developers didn't want their cheese moved and successfully deployed the obvious (and not obviously unreasonable) arguments about how C++ was the industry standard, as above. I think Armstrong also admitted that the Erlang crew had a bit of a cocky attitude and wasn't great at winning others over.

SanjayMehta 4y ago

Management decided it was easier to hire c++ programmers.

rhodin 4y ago
Yes, they built a platform Cello [0] that would allow for that if I remember correctly [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20170829230730/https://www.ericsson.com/res/thecompany/docs/publications/ericsson_review/1999/1999021.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170829230730/https://www.erics...

rr808 4y ago

I work on a project that uses a proprietary language. Its very good but its miserable to be the only place where its used. Tools are sloppy and old, no external documentation or videos, can't hire anyone who knows it, and the people on the team are half committed because they have to be but also want to keep with industry trends for their next job.

layer8 4y ago
There might be a case for open-sourcing it.