4 ms·
Honestly, based off what you said, in my opinion you clearly lack credibility. The very least you could do is properly quote what I actually said instead of po
by than3 4y ago
Honestly, based off what you said, in my opinion you clearly lack credibility.
The very least you could do is properly quote what I actually said instead of poorly paraphrasing, and then holding that paraphrase up as an example (with a different context). That's no better than putting words in other peoples mouths, its just flawed reasoning, and the tactic comes off as plainly manipulative and biased.
If you read and comprehended what I said, and knew what good documentation practices are, you'd agree if you had the experience.
Every single time I've seen a developer say differently and get their way, its resulted in project cost overruns by integer scaling factors greater than 1, many times in the double digits, assuming the project even completed (some don't).
Availability of good documentation on existing systems makes and breaks project budgets.
I really don't see how you can reasonably think this is a good example, let alone a great example. You of course are free to think what you want.
Fundamentals are covered in Chapter 31 of the Limoncelli books (TPOSA) covers the broad strokes, and Redhat Documentation pre-IBM takeover are examples of good end-product from proper documentation practices.
- em-bee 4y agoto quote the original article: And these people, there are the ones telling the average rest what they should do
- than3 3y agoEm, this isn't meant as a snipe but has to be said because you clearly didn't read and comprehend. Read what was said, and make sure you look up the definition of words like over-generalization beforehand (its a logical fallacy). If you can't pass reading comprehension at a grade school level, there seriously is almost no skilled job your suitable at. This is basic fundamental stuff. You need to do this for almost everything in a professional environment. > And these people, there are the ones telling the average rest what they should do Following that reasoning, you can literally claim anyone who communicates anything is telling someone what they should do, and the author tends to fall into this bias to group people doing just that. So anyone they want or perceive as negative then falls into this group which in fact encompasses all humanity (because communication is inherent in almost everything we do). This is literally in the definition of over-generalization, which is what I said (if you go back and read). Its also very common and manipulative tactic in identity politics often used for malign infuence against those that don't critically think to dupe them. Unfortunately, this lacks any kind of rational thought, is biased and follows flawed reasoning, and as a result lacks any kind of credibility, and rightfully so.