It is very good software, no doubt. Erlang wouldn't be so efficient without OTP. It's just a bad example of a good OSS project because it's not really a communi

It is very good software, no doubt. Erlang wouldn't be so efficient without OTP. It's just a bad example of a good OSS project because it's not really a community project but more like "some guys from ericson which accepted some contributions and opened the code". It's like saying that the C# compiler is a good OSS project. It's a good project, sure, but not a good OSS one (yes, the C# compiler is now open source, and the code is amazing). You want a good OSS project ? Take Gnome, take VLC, take Qt, take the libc^W^W^W, well not the libc. ;-) You got the idea. About code review, I persist in my point: it's a good practice, but we need this only because a code that pass the checks (compilation, analysis, tests) doesn't mean that this code works. There was an article about "security by being careful" but I don't find the url anymore. Shame. Anyway, I'm a Ocaml believer and be assured that when your compiler can give you that level of assurance, you don't review the same: you know you're not half as good as the compiler to catch errors, and that's a damn good feeling.