4 ms·

Some things might not be possible to fix. Teaching people to RTFM, for instance. No search engine will be able to replace consistent and comprehensive documenta

Some things might not be possible to fix. Teaching people to RTFM, for instance. No search engine will be able to replace consistent and comprehensive documentation written by the people who know the system intimately, but it's hard to convince most users, many developers, even, that this is actually worth the effort it takes, both to read and write." This is compounded by the trend toward instant gratification in pretty much everything. - In your normal day-to-day work, you're likely to have productivity pressures that limit your ability to do freeform thinking and learning, so you're pressured to solve small problems in a local way. - Search engines make it possible to find the answer to almost any question you might think of, and that makes it feel less necessary to do a deep dive into some topic. - ...and trends in technology make it far easier for consumers (and yes, even producers are consumers) to treat every problem with a "single-serving solution" However, the larger problem is that we naturally do not know what we do not yet know. A deep R into TFM is quite likely to teach something necessary that I didn't already know. Think, for example, of a beginning programmer who quite successfully builds all the functional requirements of a simple web app, but fails to consider the non-functional requirements because he didn't know that he had to. SQL injection is something orthogonal to the application's actual purpose, so I won't actually think about it until either I'm stung by it, or someone else tells me about it. I wouldn't know to ask otherwise.

philbarr 12y ago
The problem is: there's too many manuals. We don't have time to read them all. In fact, I think one of the skills you learn as you gain experience in software development is choosing your moments. When you can just google it, and when you need to get a cup of coffee and RTFM.
- jeremysmyth 12y ago
  ...which suggests that computing is not too easy at all, as per grandparent comment. See also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm... : During my first Microsoft internship, I wrote string libraries to run on the Macintosh... Everything I did was right from K&R -- one thin book about the C programming language. Today, to work on CityDesk, I need to know Visual Basic, COM, ATL, C++, InnoSetup, Internet Explorer internals, regular expressions, DOM, HTML, CSS, and XML. All high level tools compared to the old K&R stuff, but I still have to know the K&R stuff or I'm toast.
  - shiggerino 12y ago
    This is why Common Lisp is such a godsend for me. It covers a much wider gamut from low to high level than most languages. The Lisp Machines were really on to something, users didn't really have to know a lot of languages or competing systems. They also ensured good access to documentation. This is also two areas where the Macintosh failed (perhaps intentionally). Though Hypercard was extensible through XCMDs and XFCNs, It was a huge leap from HyperCard to the Macintosh Toolbox, not just in difficulty, but also because of the tools and documentation simply didn't exist on most people's Macintoshes, and was very expensive to buy.
    - cafard 12y ago
      What was the price of a Macintosh, though, compared to that of a Lisp Machine?
      - shiggerino 12y ago
        $49,900 for a Symbolics 3620 [1], $9,995 for a Lisa [2], $2,495 for a Macintosh 128k [3]. Affordability was a big priority with the Macintosh, and I'm thoroughly impressed what they managed to do with so little resources. So obviously, a Lisp Machine environment was far out of reach of even most experts at the time. However things progressed and I wouldn't be surprised if a PPC 604 box could run circles around a 3620. (If there's an actual Symbolics user here, please correct me if I'm wrong) So while impossible for consumers in the 80s it was certainly possible in the 90s. It's interesting to think about what if things had happened differently. Perhaps we would be sitting here posting from Copland and programming in Dylan today. Or probably not since in that case they would be bankrupt by now. But that reminds me, I think I have a pirated Copland beta laying around somewhere that I never got around to try. I seem to remember you needed two PowerMacs connected by serial cable, with one running a debugger, for it to work. 1. http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102713428 http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102713428 2. http://www.apple-history.com/lisa http://www.apple-history.com/lisa 3. http://www.apple-history.com/128k http://www.apple-history.com/128k
        12y ago

philbarr 12y ago

The problem is: there's too many manuals. We don't have time to read them all. In fact, I think one of the skills you learn as you gain experience in software development is choosing your moments. When you can just google it, and when you need to get a cup of coffee and RTFM.

jeremysmyth 12y ago
...which suggests that computing is not too easy at all, as per grandparent comment. See also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm... : During my first Microsoft internship, I wrote string libraries to run on the Macintosh... Everything I did was right from K&R -- one thin book about the C programming language. Today, to work on CityDesk, I need to know Visual Basic, COM, ATL, C++, InnoSetup, Internet Explorer internals, regular expressions, DOM, HTML, CSS, and XML. All high level tools compared to the old K&R stuff, but I still have to know the K&R stuff or I'm toast.
- shiggerino 12y ago
  This is why Common Lisp is such a godsend for me. It covers a much wider gamut from low to high level than most languages. The Lisp Machines were really on to something, users didn't really have to know a lot of languages or competing systems. They also ensured good access to documentation. This is also two areas where the Macintosh failed (perhaps intentionally). Though Hypercard was extensible through XCMDs and XFCNs, It was a huge leap from HyperCard to the Macintosh Toolbox, not just in difficulty, but also because of the tools and documentation simply didn't exist on most people's Macintoshes, and was very expensive to buy.
  - cafard 12y ago
    What was the price of a Macintosh, though, compared to that of a Lisp Machine?
    - shiggerino 12y ago
      $49,900 for a Symbolics 3620 [1], $9,995 for a Lisa [2], $2,495 for a Macintosh 128k [3]. Affordability was a big priority with the Macintosh, and I'm thoroughly impressed what they managed to do with so little resources. So obviously, a Lisp Machine environment was far out of reach of even most experts at the time. However things progressed and I wouldn't be surprised if a PPC 604 box could run circles around a 3620. (If there's an actual Symbolics user here, please correct me if I'm wrong) So while impossible for consumers in the 80s it was certainly possible in the 90s. It's interesting to think about what if things had happened differently. Perhaps we would be sitting here posting from Copland and programming in Dylan today. Or probably not since in that case they would be bankrupt by now. But that reminds me, I think I have a pirated Copland beta laying around somewhere that I never got around to try. I seem to remember you needed two PowerMacs connected by serial cable, with one running a debugger, for it to work. 1. http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102713428 http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102713428 2. http://www.apple-history.com/lisa http://www.apple-history.com/lisa 3. http://www.apple-history.com/128k http://www.apple-history.com/128k
      - 12y ago