[erlang-questions] What about making sense?

[Chandru]

On 19 February 2010 08:30, Michael Richter <ttmrichter@REDACTED> wrote:
> I think we have a lot of cross-talk going on here.
>
> Item: Some people believe that the Erlang docs as they are interfere with
> comprehension, partially because of inconsistent and unusual use of
> terminology.
>
> Item: Some people see no problem with the docs as they are.
>
> The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I believe.
>
> The docs are nowhere near as dire as some of the more vociferous
> commentators are portraying them.  Are they ideal?  No.  Are they even good?
>  Not really.  They are about average for this industry (which is a
> condemnation of the industry's standards, not of the writers).  They are,
> however, adequate.  *As references*.  If you already know what it is you're
> looking for (or should be looking for) the docs as they stand are more than
> adequate.

I agree.

>From the GNU Texinfo manual.

Documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; and
when it is bad, it is better than nothing. —Dick Brandon

Maybe this should be included in the OTP documentation.

cheers
Chandru