On Thu, 2005-29-09 at 17:03 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
akonstam(a)trinity.edu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:57:03PM +0930, Tim wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 14:39 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
>>
>>>Also a GUI tends to be a moving target, thereby making
>>>what documentation there is out of date.
>>
>>A good GUI shouldn't need documentation, though; it should explain
>>itself intuitively, and provide some hints for the more difficult bits.
>
> I have an ex-student who made a claim like this recently. His company
> produces a product that needs no documentation. It is "intuitively
> obvious" he says.
> Balderdash. I am still waiting for the program that needs no
> documentation. I think I will die first. Linux Journal put me on to
My code doesn't need documentation... It's self-documenting. See
how obvious it is? And NO COMMENTS!
:-)
We've all heard that line before in a dozen different ways.
[snip]
Yes, and any of us who have had the misfortune of fixing
or modifying such code, know just how wrong they are.
<deleted>
How to write legible code with comments and meaningful errors.
</deleted>