[erlang-questions] What about making sense?
Fri Feb 19 10:03:43 CET 2010
On 19 February 2010 08:30, Michael Richter <> wrote:
> I think we have a lot of cross-talk going on here.
> Item: Some people believe that the Erlang docs as they are interfere with
> comprehension, partially because of inconsistent and unusual use of
> Item: Some people see no problem with the docs as they are.
> The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I believe.
> The docs are nowhere near as dire as some of the more vociferous
> commentators are portraying them. Are they ideal? No. Are they even good?
> Not really. They are about average for this industry (which is a
> condemnation of the industry's standards, not of the writers). They are,
> however, adequate. *As references*. If you already know what it is you're
> looking for (or should be looking for) the docs as they stand are more than
>From the GNU Texinfo manual.
Documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; and
when it is bad, it is better than nothing. —Dick Brandon
Maybe this should be included in the OTP documentation.
More information about the erlang-questions