There's been countless arguments against PMods, mostly about their implementation, not the concept itself. Here's a list of a few I have compiled on the mailin

There's been countless arguments against PMods, mostly about their implementation, not the concept itself. Here's a list of a few I have compiled on the mailing list in the past: http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2012-August/068575.html http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2012-August/068... Evan has a point regarding the verbosity of many expressions and there have been very complete enhancement proposals that are much better in what they cover and their properties. See for example Richard O'Keefe's 'Frames' proposal: http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/staffpriv/ok/frames.pdf http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/staffpriv/ok/frames.pdf This doesn't mean his points and concerns are not valid, and it also doesn't mean that parametrized modules should stay. I think the compromise made (still support them, but not in the main OTP distribution) is a decent one, because it takes little effort to keep old code compatible, stuff still works, but the issues mentioned in my post linked above are no longer a concern of whoever is using or implementing libraries with features that were built on a weird implementations like tuple calls. It also allowed a much simpler error handler with new very interesting mechanisms when similar features were cleaned up.