A criticism
-
OK, so I was perusing the Codeplex[^] looking at PCR[^], and I was thinking, I'd like to know more about the architecture and design of PCR without perusing the code. And then it struck me, there's tabs for Home, Releases, Discussion, Issue Tracker, Source Code, People, and License. There's no tab for "Design/architecture". Now why is that? We, as programmers, are always bemoaning the lack, accuracy, and maintenance of design and architecture docs. Yet, here is a site created by and for programmers (I assume), and yet IMO, a fundamental issue is woefully omitted. Yes, I know the project owner can create a link to whatever docs he wants to supply. But wouldn't it be a better practice to make that a formal, official, sanctioned, expected thing to do??? And let's not even get started on what REALLY should be there: a tab for the requirements statement. And yes, I know one can go tab crazy, but I really believe that these items are so fundamental to what we do, and so blatantly omitted, it makes me wonder just WTF we, as programmers, really do and communicate to the world regarding our so-called "profession". :sigh: Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
OK, so I was perusing the Codeplex[^] looking at PCR[^], and I was thinking, I'd like to know more about the architecture and design of PCR without perusing the code. And then it struck me, there's tabs for Home, Releases, Discussion, Issue Tracker, Source Code, People, and License. There's no tab for "Design/architecture". Now why is that? We, as programmers, are always bemoaning the lack, accuracy, and maintenance of design and architecture docs. Yet, here is a site created by and for programmers (I assume), and yet IMO, a fundamental issue is woefully omitted. Yes, I know the project owner can create a link to whatever docs he wants to supply. But wouldn't it be a better practice to make that a formal, official, sanctioned, expected thing to do??? And let's not even get started on what REALLY should be there: a tab for the requirements statement. And yes, I know one can go tab crazy, but I really believe that these items are so fundamental to what we do, and so blatantly omitted, it makes me wonder just WTF we, as programmers, really do and communicate to the world regarding our so-called "profession". :sigh: Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
Now why is that?
i'll guess it's because the programmer didn't write down any of that stuff
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
OK, so I was perusing the Codeplex[^] looking at PCR[^], and I was thinking, I'd like to know more about the architecture and design of PCR without perusing the code. And then it struck me, there's tabs for Home, Releases, Discussion, Issue Tracker, Source Code, People, and License. There's no tab for "Design/architecture". Now why is that? We, as programmers, are always bemoaning the lack, accuracy, and maintenance of design and architecture docs. Yet, here is a site created by and for programmers (I assume), and yet IMO, a fundamental issue is woefully omitted. Yes, I know the project owner can create a link to whatever docs he wants to supply. But wouldn't it be a better practice to make that a formal, official, sanctioned, expected thing to do??? And let's not even get started on what REALLY should be there: a tab for the requirements statement. And yes, I know one can go tab crazy, but I really believe that these items are so fundamental to what we do, and so blatantly omitted, it makes me wonder just WTF we, as programmers, really do and communicate to the world regarding our so-called "profession". :sigh: Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithYeah, what Chris L just said! :) Good heavens, man, don't you know that the average programmer doesn't want to do anything but write code? Trying to get them to do any kind of documentation is only slightly easier than getting them interested in learning soft skills. It just ain't gonna happen.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
Yeah, what Chris L just said! :) Good heavens, man, don't you know that the average programmer doesn't want to do anything but write code? Trying to get them to do any kind of documentation is only slightly easier than getting them interested in learning soft skills. It just ain't gonna happen.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
OK, so I was perusing the Codeplex[^] looking at PCR[^], and I was thinking, I'd like to know more about the architecture and design of PCR without perusing the code. And then it struck me, there's tabs for Home, Releases, Discussion, Issue Tracker, Source Code, People, and License. There's no tab for "Design/architecture". Now why is that? We, as programmers, are always bemoaning the lack, accuracy, and maintenance of design and architecture docs. Yet, here is a site created by and for programmers (I assume), and yet IMO, a fundamental issue is woefully omitted. Yes, I know the project owner can create a link to whatever docs he wants to supply. But wouldn't it be a better practice to make that a formal, official, sanctioned, expected thing to do??? And let's not even get started on what REALLY should be there: a tab for the requirements statement. And yes, I know one can go tab crazy, but I really believe that these items are so fundamental to what we do, and so blatantly omitted, it makes me wonder just WTF we, as programmers, really do and communicate to the world regarding our so-called "profession". :sigh: Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithWe have a proverb in Brazil: Blacksmith's house, wooden-made stick. I think that the equivalent in english is: Who is worse shod than the shoemaker's wife? It is specially true for Microsoft websites...
Engaged in learning of English grammar ;)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.(John 3:16) :badger: -
OK, so I was perusing the Codeplex[^] looking at PCR[^], and I was thinking, I'd like to know more about the architecture and design of PCR without perusing the code. And then it struck me, there's tabs for Home, Releases, Discussion, Issue Tracker, Source Code, People, and License. There's no tab for "Design/architecture". Now why is that? We, as programmers, are always bemoaning the lack, accuracy, and maintenance of design and architecture docs. Yet, here is a site created by and for programmers (I assume), and yet IMO, a fundamental issue is woefully omitted. Yes, I know the project owner can create a link to whatever docs he wants to supply. But wouldn't it be a better practice to make that a formal, official, sanctioned, expected thing to do??? And let's not even get started on what REALLY should be there: a tab for the requirements statement. And yes, I know one can go tab crazy, but I really believe that these items are so fundamental to what we do, and so blatantly omitted, it makes me wonder just WTF we, as programmers, really do and communicate to the world regarding our so-called "profession". :sigh: Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithOh come on Marc, just read the entire code base and form a mental picture of the design. Sheesh, is that so hard?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
Yeah, what Chris L just said! :) Good heavens, man, don't you know that the average programmer doesn't want to do anything but write code? Trying to get them to do any kind of documentation is only slightly easier than getting them interested in learning soft skills. It just ain't gonna happen.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
Christopher Duncan wrote:
learning soft skills
:laugh:
-
We have a proverb in Brazil: Blacksmith's house, wooden-made stick. I think that the equivalent in english is: Who is worse shod than the shoemaker's wife? It is specially true for Microsoft websites...
Engaged in learning of English grammar ;)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.(John 3:16) :badger:Clickok wrote:
I think that the equivalent in english is:Who is worse shod than the shoemaker's wife?
I think "The cobbler's children have no shoes" is more common. But yeah, it sure seems that way a lot of the time. I'm often surprised at how few programmers bother to write tools for their own use.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Oh come on Marc, just read the entire code base and form a mental picture of the design. Sheesh, is that so hard?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
Someone on a forum asked for a design doc for the Paint.NET applicaiton (its open source). One would think a project of that size and scope might have such a doc. But none exists. Is that good or bad?
Todd Smith
-
Someone on a forum asked for a design doc for the Paint.NET applicaiton (its open source). One would think a project of that size and scope might have such a doc. But none exists. Is that good or bad?
Todd Smith
Todd Smith wrote:
Is that good or bad?
Bad for coders (more specifically contributors) and indifferent for final users...
Engaged in learning of English grammar ;)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.(John 3:16) :badger: