What about making sense?
Fri Feb 19 15:04:41 CET 2010
I somewhat disagree with this analysis...
On Feb 19, 2:30 am, Michael Richter <> wrote:
> I think that is the failing of Erlang documentation at this point. It's not
> in tutorial-level information -- there's plenty of that and of very high
> quality indeed (courtesy of Armstrong and Cesarini & Thompson). There's
> more of it on the way. It's not in the reference-level information. What's
> there isn't ideal nor is it ideally organized but it's OK. Better than some
> languages, worse than others. What's missing is information like overviews
> of the available libraries (or "applications" in Erlang-speak), what they do
> and a general idea of how to use them.
If you start at the front page of the existing docs and follow the
advice given in those very first paragraphs, you won't go far wrong.
If you actually read the docs sequentially, front to back, they
absolutely *do* make a coherent whole.
If you choose to read things in a different order, then you will miss
something and probably get confused. However, there's no real need to
skip around as the docs provided are not verbose and are rarely
More information about the erlang-questions