Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Menu Line Standardization

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 10:56:40PM -0700, JR Tipton wrote:
> 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?

in the end ... tha's what it's all about for most of the coders involved
in gnome ... fun ... and love of coding ... 

> 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."

let me in on a little secret ... programmers get hooked on a drug called
"wow this does exactly what I want" ... and they will go out of their
way to make something work right ...

it's the feeling of getting something done that most people are hooked
on ... priducing a usable program is usually just a side effect

> *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?

the ones which "fool around in their basements after work and before
dinner?" and by doing so write big applications that users use a lot ...

to give you an example take apache ... the work is being done in the manner
you suggest above .. yet it's one of those big applications .. same for the
linux kernel ... and most other free software projects ...

there is no difference between those two types of programmers ... usually
... (I've seen exceptions, but they are rare)

> 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.

how do you propose to make us do that

cut our pay if we don't?

> > 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?

USE THE SOURCE LUKE ... the thing that most hackers will consider
documentation ... the source code ...

> 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.

yes .. you got the logic right ... but you are missing a piece

c/d) if programmers are forced to write docs to write gnome apps ... they
won't write gnome apps

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

it means less code ... and gnome is a software project ...

documentation is for later .. and most likely it will be done by a
non-hacker (you know people that don't find perl syntax fascinating and
have girlfriends) ... 

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

because ... we just won't do it if we don't feel like it .. we might feel
like it ... but saying "you have to do docs" .. will most likely just make
it even more unlikely that we would write docs

George

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Lebl <jirka@5z.com> http://www.5z.com/jirka/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The following implements RSA in perl and is illegal to export from the US:

          #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
          $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
          lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)