On Thu, 2005-29-09 at 17:03 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:57:03PM +0930, Tim wrote: > > > >>On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 14:39 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote: > >> > >>>Also a GUI tends to be a moving target, thereby making > >>>what documentation there is out of date. > >> > >>A good GUI shouldn't need documentation, though; it should explain > >>itself intuitively, and provide some hints for the more difficult bits. > > > > I have an ex-student who made a claim like this recently. His company > > produces a product that needs no documentation. It is "intuitively > > obvious" he says. > > Balderdash. I am still waiting for the program that needs no > > documentation. I think I will die first. Linux Journal put me on to > > My code doesn't need documentation... It's self-documenting. See > how obvious it is? And NO COMMENTS! > > :-) > > We've all heard that line before in a dozen different ways. > > [snip] > Yes, and any of us who have had the misfortune of fixing or modifying such code, know just how wrong they are. <deleted> How to write legible code with comments and meaningful errors. </deleted>
