Re:Background to Programming Erlang
by e12e on Thursday June 26, 2014 @12:14AM
(#7948098)
Interesting post, but I feel it might do with a rewrite. It has quite a few minor mistakes and odd formulations -- it feels a bit like a first (or second) draft -- not a final post.
Now, for a normal blog post that isn't such a big deal (in the sense that publishing an interesting idea usually trumps simply not publishing it, due to never getting it "done") -- but in this case it doesn't reflect very well on the author -- and that reflects negatively on the book (unfairly, I think -- AFAIK Armstrong usually writes well).
Or am I the only one that gets that impression from the post?
Re:Background to Programming Erlang
by rubiquity on Thursday June 26, 2014 @02:14AM
(#7948336)
Actually, Joe Armstrong is known to write quite raw and his posts tend to get edited as time goes on. Joe is a gift to the programming world. Just read his writings and make the mental substitutions as needed. Or submit errors to him.
Now, for a normal blog post that isn't such a big deal (in the sense that publishing an interesting idea usually trumps simply not publishing it, due to never getting it "done") -- but in this case it doesn't reflect very well on the author -- and that reflects negatively on the book (unfairly, I think -- AFAIK Armstrong usually writes well).
Or am I the only one that gets that impression from the post?