good software and documentation [was- Re: [ILUG] ICT Expo 2006 update ]

[Brian Foster]

  | Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:36:03 +0000
  | From: "Noirin Plunkett" <plunkett at gmail.com>
  | 
  | The easier the software is to use, the better the documentation,
  | and the less buggy it is, the more likely people are to use it.
  | It's not rocket science =)

 There's a (slightly tongue-in-cheek) argument that it
 is "Rocket Science":

  + “If builders built buildings the way programmers
     write code, then the first woodpecker that came
     along would destroy civilisation.”   ½ ;-)
       Translation:  Preventing, finding, and/or fixing
                     bugs is not easy — Rocket Science?

  + A common perception is many(/most?) programmer's
    cannot write worth a ^&@£#~*.
       Translation:  _Good_ documentation is quite hard
                     to write — Rocket Science?

  + “Easy-to-use“ is in the eye of beholder.  E.g.,
    the recent flap about the merits of Gnome vs.
    KDE; or my own repeatedly stated dislike of the
    tiny fonts and low contrast that GUIs seemingly
    tend to use.†
       Translation:  What one person thinks or finds
                     easy to use another does not —
                     ergo, designing easy-to-use may
                     be Rocket Science?

 I myself find M$ software extremely hard to use,
 very badly documented, and, of course, totally
 unreliable.  Without exception!  (I cannot stand
 that fscking shiteware!)  But it seems that lots
 of people use it ....

 Alternatively, TeX is arguably one of the most
 bug-free pieces of software in existence (that
 is readily available), and has good (if long)
 documentation (“The TeXbook”, by Dr Knuth, who
 _can_ write) — but it is perhaps not used as
 much as you'd expect?  (Admittedly, TeX does
 fail on the third condition:  It's not the
 easiest to use.  Tools like `lyx' and `kile'
 try to help on that point (both, I understand,
 are by one of the main KDE designers).)

 Whilst tongue-in-cheek, there is an argument
 that easy-to-use, well-documented, bug-free
 software not only is Rocket Science, but does
 not automagically mean lots of people use it.

cheers!
	-blf-

 † I had another round of tiny-font-plus-low-contrast
   last weekend:  I got fed up (again!) with info(1),
   and decided to try tkinfo(1).  Yep: It's default
   is tiny (near invisible) font size, and the horrid
   black text on dark-ish grey background.  The man(1)
   page doesn't say how/what to configure, only to
   start `tkinfo' and type `h':  But if I cannot read
   what `h' says, what the ^&@£#~* good does that do
   me??!?  In the end, by squinting and pressing my
   nose up against the VDU screen, I found the right
   section, then copy-and-pasted it into a file to
   read, using less(1) and not going blind.  (I am
   aware I could have dug through the `.info' files,
   but having done that in the past, recall that it
   is a real PITA.)

-- 
Experienced (20+ yrs) kernel/software Eng: | Brian Foster   Montpellier,
 • Unix, embedded, &tc;  • Linux;  • doc;  | blf at utvinternet.ie   FRANCE
 • IDL, automated testing, process, &tc.   |  Stop E$$o (ExxonMobile)!
Résumé (CV) http://www.blf.utvinternet.ie  |     http://www.stopesso.com