[erlang-questions] FOP (was: Re: Trace-Driven Development)

[Henning Diedrich]

On 6/6/12 12:36 PM, Joe Armstrong wrote:
> it is a source of never-ending amazement
> to me that external users can figure out how do do things *without* asking the
> authors.

Glad to hear that, I immediately feel less stupid.


On 6/6/12 12:53 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:

> What we really need is ... money.

While we may be able to all agree on that one, there is one related 
thing that may come cheap.

As noted before, Erlang docs seem harder to Google than other docs or 
programming related information.

In my experience, this keeps being a massive productivity loss.

While I don't understand why that is, this should be sth. that without 
money, only with decent SEO knowledge, could be fixed very easily, for a 
big effect.

Especially given the fact that the HTML is generated from sufficiently 
abstract sources.

My suspicion is that it has to do with the frame layout. But it should 
be possible to compensate for that and better guide the search engines 
through it.

I have Googled unsuccessfully, repeatedly, even for stuff that I /knew/ 
I had read in the Erlang docs. But could not find, except by finally 
remembering which links I followed from what to where to end up at the 
forgotten place. I even reverted to grepping the downloaded doc htmls, 
which I can't recall I ever did for other languages.

Unfortunately, it seems the great effort of http://erldocs.com/ did not 
help this either.

Does anyone with the right skill set have a comment on that? Concretely: 
why, if we can agree on that, is it so hard to use Google to find stuff 
one is looking for in the Erlang docs; and what can be done to solve that?)


>   worth printing to wipe my arse with.
>
> I do apologise

There is always that key, top right-hand on the keyboard for immediate 
regrets.

Henning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120606/5f6e14b8/attachment.htm>