3 ms·
Couldn't agree more. I've always considered PostgresQL's documentation the finest of any software I've used, OSS or not. Many years' experience with all kinds
by jrapdx3 10y ago
Couldn't agree more. I've always considered PostgresQL's documentation the finest of any software I've used, OSS or not. Many years' experience with all kinds of software convinces me it's nearly a law of nature: the quality of a project's documentation predicts the quality of the software itself.
However I'm pretty sure writing excellent documentation must be a very hard task, otherwise it wouldn't be such a rarity. Of course, Microsoft has the resources to do it, but the level of resources required to produce and maintain surely must be decidedly non-trivial. Reasonably, we could conclude they think it provides poor ROI.
We might well beg to differ on that point, and worth saying how much their inadequate documentation reflects the quality and utility of their products.
- anarazel 10y agoI think postgres' docs work quite well as a reference documentation. But in my opinion they're quite bad at introducing users to postgres/SQL/databases, including important operational tasks like backups.
- jrapdx3 10y agoIn some respects that's true, though the docs do contain a lot of patient explanation at a pretty basic level. I wouldn't exactly call it a tutorial but it did teach me a great deal about SQL when I started using the db > 15 years ago. New standards and features have made the program more complicated over time, so periodically I need to study up on these topics. More than a few times, it's been really useful to have that "beginner level" info re: stuff that's new to me. But like you say, not all subjects are covered that way, perhaps they haven't been considered to be basic. I bet if there are enough requests the project would improve the documentation in those areas.