Should we have a page for "Other Languages"?

[svrnm]

There are a few "inofficial" implementations of OpenTelemetry out there, I saw some for perl, haskell, deno, etc.

I am wondering if we should have a page http://localhost:1313/docs/instrumentation/other/ that calls out that opentelemetry is not limited to the languages we have, that the community is open to add further languages and that there are "inofficial" implementations (and we link them, or we add them to the registry and point to that?)

[cartermp]

I think so, yes. This is anecdotal, but the company I work for actually has more customers using Haskell + OTel than Rust + OTel even though Haskell is not an officially-supported language!

[chalin]

How about this:

• For unofficial implementations that are sufficiently well developed, we could grant them their own page.
• For all others, I'd mention them on the Instrumentation page.

[cartermp]

Works for me.

[chalin]

We can always start by listing all of the unofficial implementations on the Instrumentation page and then promote them progressively to their own language-landing page.

We might need some (at least minimal) guidelines for deciding which languages get promoted. The GC might need to be involved? WDYT @austinlparker?

[svrnm]

Related: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io/pull/1922

[svrnm]

Also related (Lua): https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/issues/1276

[svrnm]

Also related, dart: https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/issues/552#issuecomment-1311135028

[svrnm]

perl https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/issues/828

[trask]

Julia: https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/issues/898

[chalin]

Can this issue be closed @svrnm, now that the "Other languages" page has been published?

[svrnm]

yes, we can close this, ty