schoappied wrote: > Ray Rashif wrote: >> On 16/04/2008, *david* <gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> <mailto:gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> Malte Steiner wrote: >> >> How on earth is it possible that you made such a feature and >> did explain >> >> it after such a long time? I do not hope that there are more such >> >> useful features of programs which are not explained yet... >> >> So at the end of the day, do you want better code or better >> documentation? I would, personally, go with the former. In most cases, >> the documentation _is_ there - except it's too obvious and it gets >> missed; man pages. QJackCtl's patchbay saving feature has been around >> for quite some time, and a lot of guides had it demonstrated in a >> practical manner - albeit not really explaining it's existence. Hmmm, actually, david gnome in hawaii did not write anything above. The joys of attribution as material is clipped. ;-) I do happen to agree that better code is better than better documentation ... but as someone who spent 20 years writing software documentation, I can tell you that 90% of the man pages I've read are worthless unless you already know the program they "document". (And, IMHO, they're really intended for command-line programs, not GUI ones.) They're really intended as a slightly-more informative way of listing and explaining a command-line program's parameters, not really showing or explaining how to use it. Sometime when I'm in a position where I don't have to spend so much time making money, I hope to do some documentation work for Linux programs. At least the ones I know and use. -- David gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx authenticity, honesty, community _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
