[erlang-questions] Re: What about making sense?
Sat Feb 20 14:44:49 CET 2010
I certainly respect your position, and as with many such discussions, I
can only give my own experience.
I do remember reasonably clearly being a newb. Actually, it wasn't that
long ago (2008)! I remember starting by reading the Getting started
section, and then going through the Erlang reference manual and
programming examples. I also remember having to re-read a good deal of
the OTP stuff before I truly "got it".
When I started with C, many years ago, I managed to get by with two
additional books. When I started with Java (even in the era of Java 1.1)
I was forced to read about 20+ additional (and highly verbose) books
beyond the documentation. When I started with Erlang, it found it
sufficient to buy just one book (Joe's book) in addition to the docs -
and the docs remain my primary reference.
I am not saying there is no room for improvement in the docs; for
example, finding something quickly can indeed be a pain (though
frequently, it is not). When you do find what you need the manner in
which it is written is almost always highly concise and accurate (though
not always). The flaws in the docs currently are really more at the
level of inconvenience than fatal flaws.
It is certainly possible that I really have "lost touch", or that I'm
just comparing the pain of Java-world to the relief of learning/using
Erlang. But that's not my call to make.
One enormous benefit of Erlang/OTP as a platform for me is that it
covers so much (not all!) of the functional space requirements we face
as application developers without any required reliance on third party
software (and having to read/cope with all the documentation you need
for those also).
Michael Richter wrote:
> I respectfully disagree. I humbly submit further that you are not doing
> what I suggested by looking at the existing docs with a newb's eyes.
More information about the erlang-questions