Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation
dburgun at dsl.pipex.com
Wed Nov 30 09:14:18 CST 2005
>Do you know what kind of book would represent the docs?
>In front of me are 2 A4 books (I need my glasses to read them :-)
>which were sent to me by Runrev with Rev Enterprise 2.0.
>The first one (User Guide) is 370 pages and the other (Transcript
>Language Reference) is 570 pages...
>I think that maintaining the docs is a hard work: you could have
>some good surprise with the Rev next version :-)
Have you seen the Apple Inside Mac Books?
It must be as hard or harder to maintain the online docs that
seperate PDF files.
If they made say broke it down into (say) 7 books, it shouldn't be so
hard to do. And as long as the latest updates were available online.
I am not necessarily talking about a printed books (although that
woukd be nice!), downloadable PDFs would be just great.
For instance, for RunRev Version 3, wouldn't it be nice is the books
for it came out way ahead of any code being produced. The docs could
then be proof read by people on this list and as many errors etc.
This would become the bible and could not be changed without RFCs
like the internet committee.
The implementation would then come from this bible and anything that
differed from the bible would be considered a bug and fixed, unless
an RFC is raised and passed.
Of course this could/would mean that creativity is stifled in terms
of adding new features, however this need not be the case. As long as
the Standard RunRev 3 "Bible" was left as defined, there could be
extensions that added to the language, similar to the way in which
#pragma's work in C/C++, adding to the standard , but never actually
taking the "standard" away.
Eventually these extensions would either die out or be adopted back
in the standard on the next major revision.
I really do think that something like this just has to be done if
RunRev is to really make it into the mainstream.
All the Best
More information about the use-livecode