[erlang-questions] Trace-Driven Development
Mon Jun 4 13:22:54 CEST 2012
On 2012-06-04 12:07, Ulf Wiger wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2012, at 09:52, Michael Turner wrote:
>> So there's a classic distributed-systems paper that gives the
>> technique its name, yet somehow, even though Kenneth Lundin agreed,
>> all the way back in 2007, that seq_trace implements Lamport clocks
>> this fact somehow hasn't made it into the documentation. Everybody has
>> to rediscover it. This is not just a waste of their time, there's also
>> the opportunity cost for Erlang/OTP (and Ericsson) in people *not*
>> discovering it because it's not named as such at www.erlang.org.
> First of all, I didn't dispute that seq_trace implements Lamport clocks,
> only that the requirements for seq_trace had different origins. In a
> similar fashion, one might claim that Erlang was inspired by Tony
> Hoare's CSP, but that would be rewriting history, even though the pieces
> mostly fit. There was a lot of work done on concurrency algorithms in the
> '70s and '80s; the telecoms industry (and Ericsson) started designing
> software-controlled phone switches in the '60s. It's very hard to untangle
> after the fact who inspired whom (but it's certainly a fascinating excercise
> - for one thing, Bjarne and co at one point visited Niklaus Wirth and came
> to the conclusion that many of the things they had been working on were
> manifest in his Modula-2… smart people working on the same type of
> problems will sometimes independently arrive at very similar conclusions.)
> My main reason for responding was that you accused the OTP team of being
> "dishonest" in not mentioning where their ideas came from. I maintain that
> they are not; only that many of the inputs that *actually* informed the
> implementation were either confidential or proprietary enough to be of
> no interest to the people reading the manuals.
> A question is of course how many people are helped by the seq_trace
> documentation mentioning the relation to Lamport clocks. Some might,
> but others couldn't care less; they just want to know how to use the
> functionality. We have had examples of OTP man pages in the past that
> have gone into great detail about algorithm choices, resulting only in
> terrifying anyone who came there just to learn how to use the API.
> This is of course the big challenge when writing product manuals.
> Many things that are of academic interest must be left out of the
> manual if it ends up confusing the reader. In this case, I'm pretty sure
> it could be worked in without harming readability, but it is of course
> perfectly possible to use seq_trace without understanding, or even
> being aware of the existence of, Lamport clocks.
> The OTP team is known to accept patches to the documentation,
> so please feel free to contribute to a more helpful way to describe
> the tracing support. I'm sure it would be universally appreciated.
Especially under the "Advanced examples" section there is less need for
since users clicking on that section likely are prepared for multiple,
possibly long, examples of using the Event Tracer.
// Gustav Simonsson
> Ulf W
> Ulf Wiger, Co-founder& Developer Advocate, Feuerlabs Inc.
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions