[erlang-questions] What about making sense?

Michael Turner leap@REDACTED
Fri Feb 19 08:10:41 CET 2010

Kenneth Lundin writes:
"As everything is organized as "applications" in the source code tree
and applications actually are groups of modules which are released and
upgraded together it makes perfect sense to structure the documentation
the same way."

If in fact it makes perfect sense, why have so many smart people found it
so confusing?

Calling a generic library an application makes no sense at all to me. 
One *applies* library functions to practical problems, in the process of
building software, typically resulting in *programs* that are
applications.  Erlang/OTP's use of "application" to mean all these
different things bears no relation to its use by the overwhelming
majority of software engineers.

If you don't believe me, try testing your TOC out on real learners. 
Give two different groups of programmers different TOCs, one perhaps as
I have suggested, the other as it currently exists.  Ask them, "which
link would you click first, to try to find stdlib, the Erlang Standard

Is it so hard to predict the result?  With yours, they won't click Basic
Applications, because stdlib is not an application in any ordinary sense
they know.  Categorizing it as a Basic Application wont' make "perfect
sense" to them, in fact, will make no sense at all to them. 
"Application" in the Erlang/OTP sense is something most experienced
programmers must learn, and be reminded of (especially since in OTP
it's usually something you can start and stop, but in other cases just
a regular Erlang library, and in yet other cases, not even that.  And if
I'm to believe the much more experienced Jayson, "application"
actually has *even more* different meanings in Erlang/OTP.)

Please don't pretend there's no difficulty here.  Forthright
admissions, early and often, that Erlang uses "application" in a
highly unusual sense (*senses*, actually) would go a long way toward
helping mere mortals get used to it.

Saying there's no real problem sounds, well ... just what kind of
attitude is conveyed by a sentiment like "Words mean what we say they
mean, and if you couldn't easily find *where* we defined, precisely and
completely, what they mean, that's not our problem"?

Would you want someone with that attitude working on documentation YOU
were trying to understand?

-michael turner

On 2/18/2010, "Kenneth Lundin" <kenneth.lundin@REDACTED> wrote:

>On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Michael Turner <leap@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On 2/17/2010, "Robert Virding" <rvirding@REDACTED> wrote:
>>>Without getting into the discussion how difficult, or not, it is to
>>>navigate the Erlang docs one source of the problem is that all the
>>>standard OTP libraries are proper Applications.
>> People should think of the trigonometric functions as part of the STDLIB
>> Application, just because gen_server is grouped in with them, in stdlib?
>> What sense does this make?
>I agree with you in that the documentation can be improved with better
>descriptions and more examples and guidelines. There is also need for
>good search facilities. We are working on both and we are releasing
>the complete documentation sources plus support to build the doc. The
>purpose with this is to make it possible for the community to help us
>improve the docs.
>I don't agree at all when you criticise the organization in :
>Toplevel System documentation plus all the "applications".
>Already on the introduction page at top-level (http://erlang.org/doc) it says
>"Erlang/OTP is divided into a number of OTP applications. An
>application normally contains Erlang modules. Some OTP applications,
>such as the C interface erl_interface, are written in other languages
>and have no Erlang modules. "
>As everything is organized as "applications" in the source code tree
>and applications actually are
>groups of modules which are released and upgraded together it makes
>perfect sense to structure the
>documentation the same way.
>An application can be a service that can be started and stopped or it
>can be a library of passive modules with functions it does not matter.
>The important thing is that an application is the smallest unit we
>handle when it comes to deliverables. We always provide a complete new
>version of a full application including documentation when we release
>binary patches.
>The documentation is treated the same way as code and is released
>together with the code to assure
>that you always have the documentation corresponding to the code.
>Our experience is that this is a very efficient way to handle
>documentation. We have no intention to change this. The documentation
>can and will be improved anyway.
>STDLIB and Kernel are unfortunately 2 basic (core) applications with a
>very mixed content.
>The criterias for what's in Kernel and what's in STDLIB  are unclear ,
>we have discussed to
>reorganize them some day but it has not been important enough to do
>it. It will also introduce
>potential incompatibilities.
>Regarding the name "application" I think it is somewhat unfortunate
>since everyone has an own idea
>about what an application is in general. For example in Ericsson an
>"application" is a complete product sold to end users. In Erlang it is
>a group of modules handled together, possibly started as a service. I
>think you have to blame Joe for naming it "application".
>>> So when when the
>>>documentation is organised around "applications", in one sense, it is
>>>being entirely logical and consistent. Of course, until you are more
>>>experienced and groked this it can be very confusing and difficult to
>>>find things.
>> But in the meantime, conceptual/terminological confusion impedes the
>> learner, whenever he/she needs to resort to the Reference Manual. ?Given
>> that Erlang already poses quite a learning curve for some, this will
>> reduce the rate at which people become "more experienced and grok
>> this", and for that matter, it will reduce the number of people who
>> even want to get that far with Erlang.
>I don't really understand what you mean are the
>conceptual/terminological confusions except maybe
>> What sense does this make?
>> What goal does this serve?
>> The goal of making it easier to autogenerate the documentation?
>I don't understand what you mean here. Most of the documentation 95%
>is handwritten.
>We strongly believe in single source and many generated presentations
>but this has no negative
>impact on the actual documentation.
>> Well, I remember the days when we humans did a lot of things to make life
>> easier for the system. ?As I recall, it involved punching a lot of cards.
>> -michael turner
>/Kenneth, Erlang/OTP Ericsson
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
>> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> To unsubscribe; mailto:erlang-questions-unsubscribe@REDACTED

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list