Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #81143
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Python docs disappointing |
| Date | 2014-11-20 23:22 +0000 |
| References | <h4vj45$5hl$1@reader1.panix.com> <77d357fb-342e-4856-814d-0e0003164fb1@googlegroups.com> <m4lscv$nr7$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.16064.1416525904.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 20/11/2014 23:10, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2014-11-20, jstnms123@gmail.com <jstnms123@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I write this to address the criticism which targets a user's lack of >> responsibility for the real/implied/insinuated failings of the docs. >> As a relatively inexperienced student of programming, I am not in any >> position to contribute/edit the documents. > > Wrong. As an inexperienced user, you are _exactly_ the right person > to contribute/edit the documents. A documents _always_ make sense to > the author and to somebody who already knows the information. They > are often not capable of seeing what's wrong. > > It's those who are _not_ familiar with the subject matter who can > often make the most valuable contributions. > >> THAT DOES NOT, however, DENY THE CATEGORICAL STUPIDITY OF THE >> DOCUMENTATION: . Not only are the semantics of the editors in >> question, but so are the syntactical and grammatical conventions, >> too. > > Then send in suggestions, corrections and improvements. Or pony up > and actually take over maintenance of one of the documents you think > is so bad. > > The authors of the documentation aren't _intentionally_ writing things > that other people don't understand. If you don't understand the > documentation or think it needs to be extended/expanded, then help > _do_ it. > > Just telling somebody "the document you wrote SUCKS!" is not even a > _tiny_ bit helpful. > Having seen some of the garbage that turns up on the bug tracker under the guise of "improvements" I suggest that many people who criticize the docs don't take up a career as a technical author. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Python docs disappointing jstnms123@gmail.com - 2014-11-20 07:54 -0800
Re: Python docs disappointing Joel Goldstick <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> - 2014-11-20 11:51 -0500
Re: Python docs disappointing albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-04 10:27 +0000
Re: Python docs disappointing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-12-04 21:37 +1100
Re: Python docs disappointing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-12-04 22:46 +1100
Re: Python docs disappointing jtan <admin@grails.asia> - 2014-12-05 07:33 +0800
Re: Python docs disappointing Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-12-04 16:57 -0700
Re: Python docs disappointing Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-11-20 09:51 -0700
Re: Python docs disappointing Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2014-11-20 11:18 -0600
Re: Python docs disappointing Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-20 23:10 +0000
Re: Python docs disappointing Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-11-20 23:22 +0000
Re: Python docs disappointing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-11-21 10:29 +1100
Re: Python docs disappointing Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-21 16:35 +0000
csiph-web