Mea Culpa (long)

Judy Perry jperryl at ecs.fullerton.edu
Mon Jul 25 22:53:04 EDT 2005


Hello,

A thoughful fellow listmember has brought it to my attention that I am
sounding even more strident than is normal (for me, anyways), and this has
prompted me to try to rethink why my reactions are what they are and why
they may be perceived differently than I intend them.

So, in keeping with that idea, here's my Mea Culpa/FAQ:

(1)  No, I do not hate Dan Shafer.  I bought his book.  Will probably buy
one or more  of the e-books.  Somehow, when whatever went down between him
& the company, I wasn't able to get his book in print, which is what I
wanted, and I ended up buying something other than what I eventually
thought I had bought.  I appreciate his and Chipp's efforts on behalf of
the RR family.  But I still am strident about books needing indices.

(2)  I don't think the Docs suck.  I think they are what they were
intended to be,  namely, on online language dictionary.  They can be hard
to use at times, _especially_ if you are not (a) familiar with the HC
lineage and/or (b) not a programmer.  They're not Danny Goodman's Guide
and, although we need something ala Danny Goodman's Guide, they shouldn't
be judged harshly for not being what they are not.  They're also not a
guide to the IDE, which, while needed, is not what they are.  Ditto for a
set of project-based tutorials which, again, while needed, are not what
they are.

So why are they the focus of such intense, sometimes negative, reaction?
Because they have to serve as all three of those things which they are not
in addition to the one thing they are.  And this  has been a problem,
unresolved, for a very long time.  And I don't understand why.

(3) I don't dislike Rev.  In fact, should it go away, I shall retire to
Sussex and keep bees or some such thing, because learning C, C++, Python,
Java, etc. etc., is just NOT something I'm gonna do.  But I don't
understand why, when numerous _other_ people note again and again that
certain things are problems (scripting tabs, anyone?) and certain things
are needed (pre-builts, a comprehensive guide, project-based tutorials),
that seemingly  NOTHING SEEMS TO CHANGE?  It's almost like there's this
disastrous disconnect between what people are telling the company they
want/need to see and what the company sees/hears needs to be done.

And, sometimes, this gets mixed up with Dan's book and is perceived as an
attack on Dan.  It's not.  It's not an attack on RR, either.  It's more
like when communication breaks down; one party says something, and the
other party acts like _either_ they understood and are ignoring it _or_
they didn't understand it at all, both of which only prompt you to repeat
yourself again and again, louder and still louder.

But, it's not an attack on Rev:  RevOnline is a good idea.  But it's not
for the novice/new user (I'm looking for something named what in which
space under whose user name???).  The Scripting Conferences are a good
idea...  but they emphasize teaching people "how to program" as opposed to
"how to make things" (yes, I know that they're really the same thing, but
how you couch terms makes a huge difference depending upon your intended
audience).  The Rev in Ed list is a good thing... in concept... but in
reality it seems to be a bunch of confused or overloaded people waiting
for something to happen, waiting especially for the company to speak to
them as educators instead of providing them with their own mail list to
talk to one another, wondering when something is gonna happen.

I'm strident BECAUSE I want (selfishly, 'cuz I'm not all that fond of
bees, either) RR to succeed.  And I don't think complacency or silence
about critical gaps will help.

Of course, quite possibly, neither does being so loud that people simply
stop listening, so,

I'm sorry if I've offended.

Judy








More information about the use-livecode mailing list