Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #174795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-16 15:20 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-11-22 13:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 117 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-16 15:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 16:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-16 16:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 19:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-17 13:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 15:30 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-17 15:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-17 15:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 17:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-11-17 18:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 06:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-16 16:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-17 16:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" "John L. Ries" <jries@salford-systems.com> - 2016-11-17 19:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:30 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 23:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" emetib <chadbrabec@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-18 10:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-11-18 11:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" emetib <chadbrabec@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 20:30 +0100
Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-12-29 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 03:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 03:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-12-30 15:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 15:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 16:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-30 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 09:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 14:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nemeth Gyorgy <friczy@freemail.hu> - 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-12-31 12:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 14:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-01-01 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-01-02 02:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 02:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 16:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 17:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 18:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 19:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-31 15:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 18:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-01-02 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 03:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 18:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 12:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 14:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 16:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 17:20 +0100
[OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 20:40 +0100
Re: [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 23:50 +0100
Re: [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 01:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2017-03-12 17:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 14:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <xen@dds.nl> - 2017-01-01 20:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2017-01-02 20:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2017-03-11 10:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 12:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 14:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-03-11 19:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-03-13 13:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 04:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-12-30 13:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 00:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 01:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 01:50 +0100
[OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?] Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-12-31 03:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?] deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2017-03-11 22:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-11-22 13:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-22 13:30 +0100
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 13:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <tkwXw-jQ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178686 |
Doug wrote: > [...] > There has been a world of improvement since then. Altho I must agree > that the Man pages that include examples are a blessing! > Or a curse. Some of them have all the examples, except the one that will actually help in a situation :). Back to "try it an see what happens in /tmp" then. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 04:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sTWcV-7nC-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176086 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> wrote: > > The thread and the responses by Catherine Gramze is one example of that. > She defends bad writing. She comes up with all kinds of excuses as to not > want to explain anything. Saying it is Good to not explain stuff. > > If you are going to say it is Good not to explain stuff, BAD WRITING WILL > ENSUE. > > So if there is a dearth of good writers, it is because there is an > overabundance of bad attitudes. To writing. You try to convince me that > explaining stuff to new users is bad because you want your man pages to be > reference only material. > > That is something only a bad writer would say. > > And anyone saying that would become a bad writer. > Ad hominem attacks now, Xen, since you cannot refute the simple fact that man pages were designed to be a reference, not a tutorial? My university technical writing course professor would disagree with your evaluation of my writing ability. He saved my work to use as examples for future classes of what he wants to see in technical writing. And I am a programmer, too, one of a very few selected by a professor to work in his IT consulting firm while still in grad school. Yes, some people can both write and code. If you do not know what a command basically does, a man page is not the place to go. I am not familiar with aufs, but I learned from the example of "bad writing" you posted that it is a filesystem utility, that it loads things in a specific sequence that has to be kept in mind when using the command, and that you wanted your specific solution laid out for you in the man page instead of figuring it out yourself. Linux has come a long way since I first began using it in 1997; its users are no longer limited to programmers and fearless non-programmers. That is what the development of gnome and KDE were for, the non-programmers to make it easy. Those users were never expected to look at a man page. If you are looking at a man page you are doing non-trivial non-noob things and should abandon the noob mindset.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 08:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUmqJ-8qV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176090 |
Catherine Gramze schreef op 30-12-2016 4:32: > Ad hominem attacks now, Xen, since you cannot refute the simple > fact that man pages were designed to be a reference, not a > tutorial? If the topic is attitudes, then those belong to people don't they? You'll need examples, won't you? You defend bad writing, period. You don't explain, or you did, but you probably don't even take the time to see what I actually mean by what I would call bad writing or what I would call good writing. Then you say you disagree with me, but it is not clear at all to me what you are disagreeing with. I do not need to refute the "simple fact" that man pages were designed to be a reference. Their incumbent design has nothing to do with what you can do with them, and they are designed just fine for writing good man pages as well as bad ones. So why the hell should I need to refute that? Are you out of your mind? You think what someone else made them to be is more important than anything else? Really. I am quickly done here if you are going to be arguing like that, because I am not arguing with add ad hominem attack here, if you will. What you do is petulant and you yourself clearly can't stand the fact that yes it is a weak argument and no it does not say anything about how those man pages should be used. > My university technical writing course professor would disagree > with your evaluation of my writing ability. He saved my work to use as > examples for future classes of what he wants to see in technical > writing. And I am a programmer, too, one of a very few selected by > a professor to work in his IT consulting firm while still in grad > school. Yes, some people can both write and code. Well, that's great. Now why do you use this position or this expertise or background to kill efforts at improving man pages for ordinary people? > If you do not know what a command basically does, a man page is not > the place to go. I am not familiar with aufs, but I learned from the > example of "bad writing" you posted that it is a filesystem utility, > that it loads things in a specific sequence that has to be kept in > mind when using the command, and that you wanted your specific > solution laid out for you in the man page instead of figuring it out > yourself. That was not a specific solution dear lady. That was one of the two commands every damn user uses. You are beliggerent and yes I am quickly done here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 12:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sU3Hr-3Ks-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176086 |
On Friday 30 December 2016 01:37:53 Xen wrote: > You do realize that coding implies hammering on a keyboard too, right? No, I do not realise that coding *implies* hammering on a keyboard. Coding the lazy modern way can be done via a keyboard. But coding itself most emphatically does not imply it. I knew I was old but ... I cannot even find a reference to coding without a keyboard. I had difficulty finding a reference to anything more basic and nearer to the CPU than Assembler. For the record, I (and surely at least one or two others on this list??!) remember coding with pin boards, sheets with squares, punched cards ... Taking a keyboard anywhere near a computer was a positively late addition to the peripherals available. ;-) It is certainly possible to code without one. Come to that, before the Ark we wrote without one too. ;-) Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 13:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sU4tP-4in-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176094 |
On 12/30/2016 5:40 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 30 December 2016 01:37:53 Xen wrote: >> You do realize that coding implies hammering on a keyboard too, right? > > No, I do not realise that coding *implies* hammering on a keyboard. Coding > the lazy modern way can be done via a keyboard. But coding itself most > emphatically does not imply it. > > I knew I was old but ... I cannot even find a reference to coding without a > keyboard. I had difficulty finding a reference to anything more basic and > nearer to the CPU than Assembler. > > For the record, I (and surely at least one or two others on this list??!) > remember coding with pin boards, sheets with squares, punched cards ... I never used a pin board, but as a junior engineer I helped create the wire lists to take input (an open/closed contact) from >1000 points in power plants and associated distribution system for presentation in a control room on a Visual Annunciator. How the lamps lit was dependent on contact state, contact change of state and current state of a large number of other contacts. The lamps could be on, off, or flashing at a specified rate. I think that fits any reasonable definition of programming. The overall system had an equivalent of macros -- implemented by small cards with TTL chips whose fine detail of operation could be programmed by selecting which jumpers were installed. > Taking a keyboard anywhere near a computer was a positively late addition to > the peripherals available. ;-) It is certainly possible to code without one. > > Come to that, before the Ark we wrote without one too. ;-) > > Lisi > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sU6Fj-5Cx-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176095 |
Richard Owlett wrote: > I never used a pin board, but as a junior engineer I helped > create the wire lists to take input (an open/closed contact) from > 1000+ points in power plants and associated distribution system > for presentation in a control room on a Visual Annunciator. > > How the lamps lit was dependent on contact state, contact change > of state and current state of a large number of other contacts. > The lamps could be on, off, or flashing at a specified rate. Sounds like one of those projects you'd find in the back of any number of various "hobby" publications for "make an authentic $thing for $purpose in your hobby". It's always amazing to hear and see how people created the logic circuits with discrete components, rather than microprocessors. > > I think that fits any reasonable definition of programming. The > overall system had an equivalent of macros -- implemented by > small cards with TTL chips whose fine detail of operation could > be programmed by selecting which jumpers were installed. > > Indeed it does. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sU6Fj-5Cx-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176094 |
On Friday, December 30, 2016 06:40:31 AM Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Friday 30 December 2016 01:37:53 Xen wrote:
> > You do realize that coding implies hammering on a keyboard too, right?
>
> No, I do not realise that coding *implies* hammering on a keyboard. Coding
> the lazy modern way can be done via a keyboard. But coding itself most
> emphatically does not imply it.
>
> I knew I was old but ... I cannot even find a reference to coding without
> a keyboard. I had difficulty finding a reference to anything more basic
> and nearer to the CPU than Assembler.
>
> For the record, I (and surely at least one or two others on this list??!)
> remember coding with pin boards, sheets with squares, punched cards ...
> Taking a keyboard anywhere near a computer was a positively late addition
> to the peripherals available. ;-) It is certainly possible to code
> without one.
Well, just to add another viewpoint (and because it was (is?) a sore point
with me):
* I used to program on paper (and, really, still do on those rare
occasions)--I think out what I plan to do, even to the level of code or
pseudocode--then I go to a machine and enter what I've written (for me, the
first was paper tape on teletype machines, then punched cards)
* the sore point for me was having ("cowboy") programmers work with me,
who, imo, did more trial and error than planning--resulting in lots of errors
and delays...
Anyway, I'm pretty much past all that now ;-)
>
> Come to that, before the Ark we wrote without one too. ;-)
>
> Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 20:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUblD-cG-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176102 |
rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, just to add another viewpoint (and because it was (is?) a sore point
> with me):
>
> * I used to program on paper (and, really, still do on those rare
> occasions)--I think out what I plan to do, even to the level of code or
> pseudocode--then I go to a machine and enter what I've written (for me,
> the first was paper tape on teletype machines, then punched cards)
>
> * the sore point for me was having ("cowboy") programmers work with me,
> who, imo, did more trial and error than planning--resulting in lots of
> errors and delays...
>
> Anyway, I'm pretty much past all that now ;-)
First of all a manual does not imply design etc. It is just a manual - the
hand book to the product. Some are good and some are bad. Those have no
relation to design.
2nd a computer (and a program) are terms that are part of 400y philosophical
tradition in mathematics here in the west and (someone might be upset) it
is related to (our christian) God and eternity. Shortly explained if
Keppler did not ask himself, how one could prove that god is eternal and
exists ... we wouldn't have a computer at all, because the question of
eternity/infinity lead via Gödel, Kantor etc to Allen Turing ... who
defined a machine that is able to run eternally.
to your last point (trial and error) there are always two types of
enthusiasts - the average and the genius. The best example is Edison vs
Tesla.
If a developer does not know how to document his/her work - he's a crippled
id*ot and must be fired. The sad thing is that people learn less and less
language at school, so no wonder there are more and more id**ts on this
planet.
regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 00:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUeCR-2I1-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176126 |
On Friday 30 December 2016 19:46:59 deloptes wrote:
> rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, just to add another viewpoint (and because it was (is?) a sore
> > point with me):
> >
> > * I used to program on paper (and, really, still do on those rare
> > occasions)--I think out what I plan to do, even to the level of code or
> > pseudocode--then I go to a machine and enter what I've written (for me,
> > the first was paper tape on teletype machines, then punched cards)
> >
> > * the sore point for me was having ("cowboy") programmers work with me,
> > who, imo, did more trial and error than planning--resulting in lots of
> > errors and delays...
> >
> > Anyway, I'm pretty much past all that now ;-)
>
> First of all a manual does not imply design etc. It is just a manual - the
> hand book to the product. Some are good and some are bad. Those have no
> relation to design.
>
> 2nd a computer (and a program) are terms that are part of 400y
> philosophical tradition in mathematics here in the west and (someone might
> be upset) it is related to (our christian) God and eternity.
That is definitely debatable.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ancient+greek+computer&oq=ancient+greek+computer&aqs=chrome..69i57.6858j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
In what way is the Antikythera mechanism not a computer? And where did your
400 years come from?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Euclid&oq=Euclid&aqs=chrome..69i57.3605j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pythagoras&oq=pythagoras&aqs=chrome..69i57.4005j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Yes, I know that I could have gone earlier (Babylon etc.), but well
pre-christian seemed enough here.
You can't argue anything reasonably from the terms, since that depends on the
language you are speaking at the time, which most certainly does not depend
on the Christian, or even Abrahamic, God. I just looked computer up on
Google translate and got:
ηλεκτρονικός υπολογιστής
(my Greek ante-dates PCs ;-) )
But that I think is more "electronic computer", which is certainly well post
Christian.
And the term "program" is American.
> Shortly
> explained if Keppler did not ask himself, how one could prove that god is
> eternal and exists ... we wouldn't have a computer at all,
As I say, I don't buy this. There are many analogue computers that antedate
Keppler.
> because the
> question of eternity/infinity lead via Gödel, Kantor etc to Allen Turing
> ... who defined a machine that is able to run eternally.
>
> to your last point (trial and error) there are always two types of
> enthusiasts - the average and the genius. The best example is Edison vs
> Tesla.
>
> If a developer does not know how to document his/her work - he's a crippled
> id*ot and must be fired.
If he is not employed, as most open source developers are not, he can't be
fired. People who are doing things as a hobby and because they enjoy them,
do the bits they enjoy. Which is why so much wonderful open source software
decays from bit-rot, without ever getting documented. :-(
Lisi
> The sad thing is that people learn less and less
> language at school, so no wonder there are more and more id**ts on this
> planet.
>
> regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 01:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUfpf-3gq-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176129 |
Lisi Reisz wrote: > That is definitely debatable. > > https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ancient+greek+computer&oq=ancient+greek+computer&aqs=chrome..69i57.6858j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 > > In what way is the Antikythera mechanism not a computer? And where did > your 400 years come from? > https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Euclid&oq=Euclid&aqs=chrome..69i57.3605j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 > https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pythagoras&oq=pythagoras&aqs=chrome..69i57.4005j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 > > Yes, I know that I could have gone earlier (Babylon etc.), but well > pre-christian seemed enough here. > > You can't argue anything reasonably from the terms, since that depends on > the language you are speaking at the time, which most certainly does not > depend on the Christian, or even Abrahamic, God. I just looked computer > up on Google translate and got: > ηλεκτρονικός υπολογιστής > (my Greek ante-dates PCs ;-) ) > But that I think is more "electronic computer", which is certainly well > post Christian. > > And the term "program" is American. > I understand what you mean, but it was in the last 400y that this machine took shape. In fact it was Turing that defined it. But he would not be able to define it if it was not the mathematicians before him. I agree with you as well, we could go to the roots of mathematics, however even if the definition of such a machine was so old, it wouldn't be possible to build it without the technical advantage, so ... I still think my statement is true. You can argue as long as you will. >> Shortly >> explained if Keppler did not ask himself, how one could prove that god is >> eternal and exists ... we wouldn't have a computer at all, > > As I say, I don't buy this. There are many analogue computers that > antedate Keppler. > if you don't buy this, you miss the point. >> because the >> question of eternity/infinity lead via Gödel, Kantor etc to Allen Turing >> ... who defined a machine that is able to run eternally. >> >> to your last point (trial and error) there are always two types of >> enthusiasts - the average and the genius. The best example is Edison vs >> Tesla. >> >> If a developer does not know how to document his/her work - he's a >> crippled id*ot and must be fired. > > If he is not employed, as most open source developers are not, he can't be > fired. People who are doing things as a hobby and because they enjoy > them, do the bits they enjoy. Which is why so much wonderful open source > software decays from bit-rot, without ever getting documented. :-( > Yes and this is the problem. Now everybody that could contribute in some meaningful way is busy fixing the mess someone left behind and didn't document (properly). Thank you! regards regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 01:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUg1X-445-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176130 |
On Saturday 31 December 2016 00:07:34 deloptes wrote: > > If he is not employed, as most open source developers are not, he can't > > be fired. People who are doing things as a hobby and because they enjoy > > them, do the bits they enjoy. Which is why so much wonderful open source > > software decays from bit-rot, without ever getting documented. :-( > > Yes and this is the problem. Now everybody that could contribute in some > meaningful way is busy fixing the mess someone left behind and didn't > document (properly). Thank you! We agree! Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 03:20 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?] |
| Message-ID | <sUhr3-5cP-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176130 |
Talk about a thread going South! (Perhaps we can get back to bashing systemd?) On 12/30/16 7:07 PM, deloptes wrote: >> In what way is the Antikythera mechanism not a computer? And where did >> your 400 years come from? >> > > I understand what you mean, but it was in the last 400y that this machine > took shape. In fact it was Turing that defined it. But he would not be able > to define it if it was not the mathematicians before him. I agree with you > as well, we could go to the roots of mathematics, however even if the > definition of such a machine was so old, it wouldn't be possible to build > it without the technical advantage, so ... I still think my statement is > true. You can argue as long as you will. Well, you kind of forget: Joseph Jacquard (and maybe Basile Bouchon) not to mention Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelance Alonzo Church. And of course, John von Neumann (if you want to talk actual hardware architecture) -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 10:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?] |
| Message-ID | <sUnZv-12i-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176132 |
Miles Fidelman wrote: > Well, you kind of forget: > Joseph Jacquard (and maybe Basile Bouchon) > not to mention Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelance > Alonzo Church. > And of course, John von Neumann (if you want to talk actual hardware > architecture) agreed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 22:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <tjX3H-fX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176061 |
Hi there On 29/12/16 14:44, cbannister@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > [sorry for the late response.] > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:05:48AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: >> It is not easy to describe a program with many use cases and even >> more particular settings and actions. >> >> What lacks to my experience as confused reader and as best effort writer >> is the user's view on the programs. man pages should document the details >> and often do sufficiently. >> But the user looks for solutions, not opportunities. > > An interesting thing to ponder is whether a tractor manual should explain > how to prepare a field to plant carrots. No, but you might want to put a carrot man page in section 7 (I like section 7). > Also, think of man pages as a reference (what does that switch do again?) > not as a "first introduction" or tutorial. > > e.g. I'd be annoyed if a chess database program's documentation consisted of > how to play the game, rules of the game, etc. Regards, Rob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 07:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sGcrg-3oO-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174795 |
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote: > There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor fledgling > programmers. > Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD <Summer of > Documentation> projects for potential tech writers. > > In many areas, nerds are considered illiterate. I can see SOD projects as a > vehicle to encourage technically oriented teens to hone their composition > skills. Attempting to edit existing man pages might be a good starting > point. It would obviously require mentors with an atypical mixture of skill > sets. > One side note. IMHO man pages/info pages have a huge barrier of entry. You have to learn a new language to write one and that can be discouraging to some. Ideally, a documentation developer would just focus on the content and does not spend much time on the meta aspects of documentation (ex:- typesetting/formatting etc.,). From this aspect, a wiki is an ideal way to document something... but may be there are better tools out there that I am unaware of. thanks raju -- Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 13:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sGhTX-6Ds-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174988 |
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 01:00:49AM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: >On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote: >> There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor fledgling >> programmers. >> Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD <Summer of >> Documentation> projects for potential tech writers. >> >> In many areas, nerds are considered illiterate. I can see SOD projects as a >> vehicle to encourage technically oriented teens to hone their composition >> skills. Attempting to edit existing man pages might be a good starting >> point. It would obviously require mentors with an atypical mixture of skill >> sets. >> > >One side note. IMHO man pages/info pages have a huge barrier of entry. >You have to learn a new language to write one and that can be Not necessarily. There are tools which convert from one document format to man pages. pod2man creates man pages from perl's embedded POD format. For Python there's sphinx or doxygen. For more generic purposes, DocBook renders to all sorts of outputs. Not creating documentation CONTENT because of PRESENTATION issues is specious, really. >discouraging to some. Ideally, a documentation developer would just >focus on the content and does not spend much time on the meta aspects >of documentation (ex:- typesetting/formatting etc.,). From this >aspect, a wiki is an ideal way to document something... but may be >there are better tools out there that I am unaware of. > >thanks >raju >-- >Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog > -- For more information, please reread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sGin0-75Z-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174988 |
On 11/22/2016 12:00 AM, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote: >> There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor fledgling >> programmers. >> Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD <Summer of >> Documentation> projects for potential tech writers. >> >> In many areas, nerds are considered illiterate. I can see SOD projects as a >> vehicle to encourage technically oriented teens to hone their composition >> skills. Attempting to edit existing man pages might be a good starting >> point. It would obviously require mentors with an atypical mixture of skill >> sets. >> > > One side note. IMHO man pages/info pages have a huge barrier of entry. I agree. More so than I might have before I was pointed to projects aimed at improving man pages and their preparation. > You have to learn a new language to write one and that can be > discouraging to some. Ideally, a documentation developer would just > focus on the content and does not spend much time on the meta aspects > of documentation (ex:- typesetting/formatting etc.,). We agree. I was attempting to focus on a sub-set of the problem. SOC projects focus, by design, on developing skill sets tightly bound to the activity of programming. I would see SOD as serving a much broader audience. [Side note I date from the era when the catch phrase "Why Johnny can't ..." was prevalent when discussing the state of education in the U.S.A.] I can see SOD projects at the Junior and Senior high school level motivating the writing skills of under performing but technology oriented students. I was [possibly still am a half century later] part of that audience. > From this > aspect, a wiki is an ideal way to document something... but may be > there are better tools out there that I am unaware of. > > thanks > raju >
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web