schoappied wrote: > M-.-n wrote: >> Documentation is the thoughest part of releasing "homebrew" code IMHO. >> I'm lucky to have a bunch of entousiastic helping me keeping a wiki up >> to date. Also, for the getting started (my tracker definetly needs >> that), we've decided to use screencasts, which is going to be nice. >> Trashy test sample here: >> >> http://www.10pm.org/nostromo/temp/piggygotjynxed.swf >> >> It's reaaallly easy to do (at least under windows), it's not utube >> garbage, and the fact of being able to record audio explaining what you >> do is the best thing ever. Of course, it doesn't prevent from needing a >> reference manual but it makes part of the explanation a lot easier. >> >> Possibly a similar application must exist for linux >> >> Regards, >> Marc >> >> Malte Steiner a écrit : >> >>> Documentation is good and honourable for programmers. One reason the QT >>> library is adopted so often is the well done documentation. And I hold >>> back the release of my softwaresynthesizer 'Minicomputer' until I wrote >>> a manual. >>> > This are real good examples of how it can be. Put some discipline in the > project to state that a release is only with good documentation... and > otherwise hold it back for a while. My favorite philosophy of software documentation is what Steven Wolfram followed when he created Mathematica. He wrote the documentation - what it would do and how you made it do it. Then the program was written to do what the book said in the way it said to do it. Not cheap, but there is a Linux version of the software. I wonder if it could be used to make music, too? -- David gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx authenticity, honesty, community _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
