[erlang-questions] erlang sucks

attila.rajmund.nohl@REDACTED attila.rajmund.nohl@REDACTED
Mon Mar 17 14:46:06 CET 2008

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Mats Cronqvist wrote:

> attila.rajmund.nohl@REDACTED wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Anders G S Svensson wrote:
>> [...]
>>> You might not think that when the code is at a customer site and
>>> applying patches isn't something the customer (or the layers of
>>> management between you and the customer) will let you do.
>> Thankfully I haven't been in this situation. But I stand by my claim -
>> if it's possible, it's often faster to insert io:format calls into the
>> call than to try to make sense of hundreds of lines of trace generated by
>> two simple function calls. Actually it would be nice if we'd have a tool
>> that could parse such trace and the source code and could show me that
>> which function was called...
> i claim that in a real system, it is *always* faster to use the trace BIF 
> than io:format, if you are equally skilled with both.
> for example, the "hundreds of lines of trace" you're talking about would 
> presumably be the arguments to functions calls?
> from the erlang:trace/3 man page; "arity - Used in conjunction with the call 
> trace flag. {M, F, Arity} will be specified instead of {M, F, Args} in call 
> trace messages."

Actually I do need some of the arguments (how would I know which one of
the 10 similarly named functions is called?), I just don't need the
whole process state.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
  tried it."

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list