Wed Jul 6 12:58:45 CEST 2011
On 6 July 2011 01:52, Mike Oxford <moxford@REDACTED> wrote:
> erl running inside of a backgrounded emacs in the original directory
> seems to have been the culprit.
> Killed it off, nuked the directory, used the merged backup with the
> rebuilt-nodes and things are good again.
So that culprit was not rebar of anything to do with rebar?
> If two things are going to kill Erlang's uptake it's not going to be
> the syntax, the performance, the functional-way-of-thinking... it'll
> be the terrible error messages and the arcane build/packaging, both of
> which make Erlang feel like a house of cards you can't even look at
> wrong and, thus, give no confidence in actually running it in
> production. (Not to mention just plain annoying devs to the point
> they walk away from it, which is what kills more languages over time
> than anything else.)
So rebar is an effort to make a good build/packaging system for
erlang. The problems you encountered don't seem to be directly
related, as the aforementioned culprit was some other background
More information about the erlang-questions