 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/04/19 11:46, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/19/2011 2:45, Invisible wrote:
>> I don't personally know of anybody who actually sent a cheque
>
> AFAIK, I'm the only person in the entire world that ever paid for WinZip.
>
I did pay for PK Zip, then found free alternatives that both zipped
beter (faster and beter compression), and supported many formats beside ZIP.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 15:21, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sure, but that's different than poor end-user documentation, that's what
> I'm saying.
Sure. It's two different problems, and they're both problems.
> Most OSS projects rely on code as the internal documentation.
Code is not documentation. Anyone who thinks that code *is* documentation on
any project you feel the need to split into multiple files is fooling
themselves.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:48:35 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> Most OSS projects rely on code as the internal documentation.
>
> Code is not documentation. Anyone who thinks that code *is*
> documentation on any project you feel the need to split into multiple
> files is fooling themselves.
Of course, that was pretty much what I said in the next sentence after
what you quoted.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 17:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:48:35 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>>> Most OSS projects rely on code as the internal documentation.
>>
>> Code is not documentation. Anyone who thinks that code *is*
>> documentation on any project you feel the need to split into multiple
>> files is fooling themselves.
>
> Of course, that was pretty much what I said in the next sentence after
> what you quoted.
Even if everyone uses the same style, code isn't documentation. Even if only
one person works on the code ever, code isn't documentation. Code is no more
documentation than the steering wheel is your turn signals.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:10:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 17:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:48:35 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>>> Most OSS projects rely on code as the internal documentation.
>>>
>>> Code is not documentation. Anyone who thinks that code *is*
>>> documentation on any project you feel the need to split into multiple
>>> files is fooling themselves.
>>
>> Of course, that was pretty much what I said in the next sentence after
>> what you quoted.
>
> Even if everyone uses the same style, code isn't documentation. Even if
> only one person works on the code ever, code isn't documentation. Code
> is no more documentation than the steering wheel is your turn signals.
Code in and of itself doesn't include why, but one could argue (though
I'd have to admit that it would be pointless to argue it with you or any
other professional coder <g>) that that's what comments are for. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 19:01, Jim Henderson wrote:
> that that's what comments are for. ;)
Comments help with localized pieces of code. If I hand you something like
Apache or Outlook or the Linux kernel, in-line comments are not going to
tell you what order to read code in to learn how it works. Especially if
fixing some specific bug is your first task. Sure, someone can show you
*this* piece of code parses configuration files and *that* piece of code
handles authentication, but that's a person showing you that, or hours
wandering around looking for an anchor. And that's even assuming the code is
well structured to start with.
And once it grows, you're just screwed. I mean, really, something like the
Linux kernel is really a fairly small system compared to some of the big
systems out there. (There it is. Linux is 14 million lines of code. AT&T
TURKS is 100 million lines of *SQL*, let alone all the systems that use it.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:45:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 19:01, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> that that's what comments are for. ;)
>
> Comments help with localized pieces of code. If I hand you something
> like Apache or Outlook or the Linux kernel, in-line comments are not
> going to tell you what order to read code in to learn how it works.
> Especially if fixing some specific bug is your first task. Sure, someone
> can show you *this* piece of code parses configuration files and *that*
> piece of code handles authentication, but that's a person showing you
> that, or hours wandering around looking for an anchor. And that's even
> assuming the code is well structured to start with.
Well, yes, I do know what you mean. Even with proper code analysis
tools, it can be difficult to read code.
It's far easier if, for instance, you're using a tool like Source
Navigator (which I really like for this type of thing) you are looking to
analyze a bug. Having an error code and a call stack makes it far easier
to use a tool like that than to say "I wonder how it does 'x'" and then
work through the logic. It's possible, but it can take quite a while.
Proper documentation includes design documents and the like - and that
certainly goes a lot further than code alone.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I remember reading about a memory of library stuff who saw somebody
>> using Telnet. She screamed "OH MY GOD, YOU'RE HACKING OUR COMPUTERS!!!"
>> and turned the computer off at the wall. The guy tried to explain what
>> he was actually doing, but she wouldn't have it.
>>
>> Apparently there are a lot of stupid people...
>
> Look at
> http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/
> for many samples.
http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_paranoia.shtml
My story is about half way down. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 16:46, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 2:45, Invisible wrote:
>> I don't personally know of anybody who actually sent a cheque
>
> AFAIK, I'm the only person in the entire world that ever paid for WinZip.
That's not even shareware any more. You get a free 30-day trail, and
after that you're legally required to pay for it. It's just that nobody
does. (I have no idea if PKZIP was shareware...)
Personally, I just use 7zip.
>> without the net it would have been infeasible.
>
> Yep. And without Windows it would have been infeasible too, because
> there wouldn't be enough people with compatible hardware to have a hope
> in hell of getting it working on enough varieties of machines to make it
> worthwhile.
How did all the other Unicies work?
>> of a lot of money for a program that doesn't even *do* very much and
>> isn't especially complicated.
>
> This coming from the guy who can't find the documentation on how to make
> it do stuff? :-) Granted, most people don't use most of its
> sophisticated features, but saying Word doesn't do much is like saying
> LaTeX just translates one text file into another format, no biggie.
LaTeX *does* just translate a text file into another format. ;-) About
the only special thing about it is that it has a Turing-complete textual
substitution engine and a sophisticated layout constraint solver. It
surprises me that nobody has yet taken the sophisticated layout engine
and put it into a modern piece of software...
>> Silly me, I'm thinking that prices have something to do with what it
>> costs
>> to produce something. This is the 21st century. Prices are driven by how
>> much you can rip people off and get away with it...
>
> They always have been.
Apparently I'm getting old. It used to be that people expected to *get*
something for their money - and if they didn't, they took it elsewhere.
Or at least, I'm now old enough to delude myself that this is how it
used to work.
> Next time you have a problem, I'll show you how to find the answer. It's
> generally not difficult, altho sometimes it can be ugly.
Any idea why printing through Terminal Services keeps breaking for no
apparent reason?
[You used to have to install an identical print driver on the TS server
or it wouldn't work. Apparently they fixed that now, so that's not it.]
I can understand it never working in the first place. What I can't
understand is why it works perfectly, and then one day one particular
user can't print anymore.
> Especially if
> they've rearranged their site and you start getting 404's. Really,
> Microsoft? You run Bing but you haven't figured out how to not have
> internal links to broken pages?
How or to clearly document when a hotfix is included in some later
hotfix or service pack. Or clearly state what product version(s) the
information in a document applies to. Or...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/20/2011 1:25, Invisible wrote:
> That's not even shareware any more. You get a free 30-day trail, and after
> that you're legally required to pay for it.
I think that's how it has always been.
> How did all the other Unicies work?
They were all processor-specific. You bought it from the hardware vendor,
just like you bought Apple DOS from Apple, TRS-DOS from Tandy, etc.
>> Next time you have a problem, I'll show you how to find the answer. It's
>> generally not difficult, altho sometimes it can be ugly.
>
> Any idea why printing through Terminal Services keeps breaking for no
> apparent reason?
Wow. OK, step one, learn to file a bug report.
When you go to the mechanic, do you say "my car's wrong, fix it"? Or do you
actually describe the symptoms, what you tried to do to fix it, what search
terms you used, etc?
> How or to clearly document when a hotfix is included in some later hotfix or
> service pack.
I've seen few rollups that didn't list the hotfixes included, or how to tell
whether you need a hotfix or how to tell whether you already have it, if you
actually read the KB article about it.
> Or clearly state what product version(s) the information in a
> document applies to. Or...
Oh come on.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
