"Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I think: >> >> "I have never quite understand why so many good, and often >> brilliant programmers, take it so hard when others suggest that >> they document what they do in easily understandable >> sentences. There must be something wrong in the educational >> systems of the countries from which most programmers come when >> they can not, or do not, want to write clearly." >> >> speaks for itself. If you meant something else by that remark, >> perhaps you'd like to clarify? > > You have no doubt read something into a general remark which I did > not intend. Clearly that was not targeted to "library authors who > don't publish the ChangeLog" or I would have been much more specific > about it. Nor do I accuse anyone of being poorly educated. > > I am critical, again in general, about the unwillingness of many > programmers to want to communicate their ideas in clear and cogent > prose, and about educational systems, in general, that do not feel > it is their responsibility to educate students so that basic writing > proficiency is met. But that is my right in a free society, to think > for myself and have my own opinions and beliefs about those things. > > I still do not understand the brouhaha which is often caused when > someone suggests that things be documented as a help to other > programmers. When someone says that an implementation might be > improved by changing something in some way, programmers discuss this > rationally and reasonably in most cases, usually no matter how > assertive people are in their suggestions as long as it remains a > technical issue. When someone suggests, let's have better > documentation of something, programmers get very defensive in most > cases and hostile in some others. It appears to be sacrosanct ground > one is treading upon when one seeks to improve things in the > programming world by encouraging better documentation, and argues > for that improvement even in a low-key way.
...and all of this is a general remark about programmers which has no particular relationship to what's going on here at Boost? >>>> This is hardly first time we've been over this >>>> ground: >>>> >>>> http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg38799.php >>>> http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg38801.php >>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/11576 >>> >>> These are irrelevant to the present post. >> >> Except that I'll be much more likely to "react vehemently" to posts >> I perceive as aggressive if there's a history of similar offensive >> behavior behind it. > > I don't see offensive behavior in those posts. That's not a fair way > of criticizing positions with which someone doesn't agree, by > calling it offensive. You apparently managed to offend several people with them. I have already detailed at length what the problems were with that post (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/11576) > But even if you do really feel it is offensive by your standards, > past interpretations of actions should not be used to view judge > present situations. Human nature, sorry. > We are getting nowhere in this discussion, however, and I don't > think we are really disagreeing with each other. I can only attest > that my remarks were meant to encourage Boost programmers to better > document changes in their libraries so that users could better > understand how each new release affects their own programming > endeavors with Boost. I suggest that in the future, to avoid misunderstanding, you leave out irrelevant "general remarks" about the attitude of "many programmers". -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
