Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Menu Line Standardization

[JR Tipton <nails maybe net>]

On 10 Aug 1998, Peter Bortas wrote:
> JR Tipton <nails@maybe.net> writes:
> > If programmers don't take very well to orders, why write a style guide
> > with requirements in the first place?
> 
> Because by following the guide the programmer decreases the amount of
> documentation he has to write to get people to understand it. Besides,
> it's fun to fool around with GUI-widgets and other user interaction
> thingies. Writing documentation is not.
[snip] 
> I dare you to find an Oracle employee that wants to write docs on his
> spare time.

Think about the priorities you've got set here: do you really mean to say
that it is more important for the style guide to make sure the programmers
have their fun than it is to make it better for the users?

Debugging isn't really very fun, but I would say that it should be
suggested that applications be bug free.  We haven't had to argue about
this one, but debugging isn't fun for the coder!  Should we say, "eh,
don't worry about bugs: we know it's boring."

> > I challenge you to prove that GNOME would be worse for requiring
> > respectable documentation.  That's what this is about, right?  
> Of course. It's quite simple. GNOME is going to suffer in two ways:
> 1. Programmer will not make the effort of making their programs Gnome
>    compatible since the first thing they have to do is write doc.

*Which* programmers are you talking about?  Amateur programmers that fool
around in their basements after work and before dinner?  Or ones that
write the big applications, the ones that users use a lot of?

I think that if you teach programmers that documentation is just part of
the process right next to debugging, the whole world of software will be a
better place.

> 2. Other programmers will make nice manual containing only the word
>    "UTSL" to get it Gnome compatible. That entry could have been
>    something useful instead, like a general guide to using GNOME
>    applications as earlier suggested.

I don't see any validity to this statement.  UTSL?
 
> Therefore documentation should NOT be in GC1. Don't get me
> wrong. Documentation is vital, and programmers know that, but Gnome
> will only suffer from making doc GC1.

Okay, I'm trying to follow the logic here... help me out:
a) Documentation is vital to applications.
b) Applications are vital to GNOME.
c) Nobody likes writing documentation.
d) Requiring ocumentation is bad for GNOME.

I'm still not seeing why requiring documentation does anything but good
for Gnome.  

I'm still not seeing why taking a few hours out of programmers is a bad
thing for Gnome.

william r. tipton