[erlang-questions] Re: What about making sense?

Michael Richter <>
Fri Feb 19 16:33:44 CET 2010


On 19 February 2010 22:04, Steve Davis <>wrote:

> 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.
>
> http://www.erlang.org/doc/


I do not see anything there which gives guidance on how to use dialyzer,
edoc and typer together in the same source file.  On the subtle, vaguely
incompatible differences in notation between these three.  Did I miss
something?


> If you actually read the docs sequentially, front to back, they
> absolutely *do* make a coherent whole.
>

I respectfully disagree.  I humbly submit further that you are not doing
what I suggested by looking at the existing docs with a newb's eyes.

-- 
"Perhaps people don't believe this, but throughout all of the discussions of
entering China our focus has really been what's best for the Chinese people.
It's not been about our revenue or profit or whatnot."
--Sergey Brin, demonstrating the emptiness of the "don't be evil" mantra.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list