Re: All these newbie questions that are answered by documentation
Re: All these newbie questions that are answered by documentation
- Subject: Re: All these newbie questions that are answered by documentation
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:59:37 -0500
On Friday, November 9, 2001, at 03:31 PM, Erik M. Buck wrote:
It seems to me that most of the newbie questions that are easily answered
by
documentation and keep recurring in this forum and others are due to 4
general causes:
1) People seemingly refuse to look at the super class's documentation
The need to do this is NOT obvious at first glance and may take days or
weeks to figure out. As for refusal: the two biggest refusals I see are
on the part of gurus like you who refuse to cut newbies and beginners any
slack and just assume that we are all lazy, and the even bigger refusal on
the part of Apple to get their collective act together on bringing the
docs up to speed.
2) Sherlock sucks so bad that people will not use it to search the
documentation and newbies can not be bothered to use MTLibrarian or
another
search tool.
Again, not everyone starting out knows about these tools. As for Sherlock:
barf!
3) There is a lack of good concepts and overview documentation.
The most intelligent thing you've said yet.
Newbies
refuse to just dive in and read the details about classes.
Without the concepts and overview documentation you mention above, how the
hell are we supposed to know what classes we need to look at? Sometimes it'
s obvious, but most of the time it's not--unless you expect mere mortals
to memorize 2700 pages of incomplete class docs. Futhermore, if the word
"cryptic" did not already exist we'd have to coin the sucker just to
describe the classes docs. Every doc I've looked at assumes you already
know the details from several other docs--a variation on the old circular
argument theme. Called a circle-jerk in some circles!
They seem to
want broad overviews that at least tell them where to look. Combined with
the fact that newbies don't even know the terminology to use when
searching,
they can not find anything.
Well, gee, now you are making the same points I made above. If you
understand that overviews and concepts and terminology are missing from
Apple, why are you beating up on us newbies and beginners?
4) Familiarity with C++ and MFC has warped their minds to the point that
they just can not understand a dynamic language like Objective-C and
flexible frameworks like the Application Kit. A refusal to change
mindsets
locks people out of Cocoa.
Again with this refusal crap; if C++ has as you say warped minds to the
extent you outline above, refusal has nothing to do with it. Indeed,
Apple needs to make a bigger effort to unwarp these poor souls. Doing so
would no doubt be of help to folks like me who do not suffer the ill
effects of having grappled with the horror of C++.
I see several solutions:
For 1), Apple could include every method from every superclass in the
documentation for every class. That would only expand the size of the
documentation by a factor of 5 or so, but then people would not have to
look
in more than one place as often.
One word: hyperlink! And not the lame implementation so-called "Help"
uses!!!!!
For 2), Apple could/should just scrap the shifty Sherlock and revive
Digital
Librarian or something better.
Agreed. I vote for something better. Much better!
People could also start using google.
Google is very handy for searching Apple's on-line documentation.
Granted, and I for one have started to do so; your biggest help to me
personally, I should add. Thanks. But it is not always obvious what
search terms to use, as you yourself pointed out above. If the docs and
overview, et cetera, were up to snuff then resorting to Google would not
be necessary.
For 3), more is better, but most of the newbies posting have never
bothered
to read Object Oriented Programming and Objective-C.
I can't speak for others, but I've read it three time over the past 10
months! It clearly outlines the reasoning behind Cocoa and Objective-C in
a global sense, a truly great sales pitch, but does _nothing_ as far as
details go. And the devil's in the details, to steal a line from someone
else.
I don't know how we
can expect these people to read any kind of overview if they are not
willing
to even learn the language of the frameworks.
Leaving aside for the moment your snide tone, you are clearly putting the
horse before the cart here; studying the frameworks without the grand
picture just clutters the head with unrelated bits and pieces. One needs
the view from the mountaintop in order to see how everything is connected.
Oh, you'll get it in the end _if_ you stay at it long enough, but there
is really no reason to force people to suffer the lost time and FUD that
goes along with this approach--other than satisfy the apparent need of
some gurus who insist that everyone pay the same dues they did. News
flash: it's 2001, not 1980!
For 4) If people will not change and/or can not see the advantages of a
different way of doing things then I don't think Cocoa will ever appeal to
them. I suggest that we forward all such people to the Carbon lists.
And I suggest that we forward you to some ten-year-old Next list. Better
yet, why don't you yell at Apple and push for you separate list for
newbies and beginners? I've pushed for it since April when I first joined
this show!
Brian E. Howard
Cocoa Cult Central
too pissed to be clever tonight