top 85 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 133 points 1 year ago (6 children)

People say "RTFM" then you get to the manual and it's this

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 99 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Another problem is that people skim to the "most important bits" without knowing they're skipping something important. Then some of those people complain how the manual is shit.

    I guess it could be shit if it is way too verbose though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I love the shit out of this. I can relate SO HARD to everything she wrote. It's like most people don't understand how to communicate with regular normal human beings

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 32 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    They have even forgotten one of the most basic grammar rules - always fully spell out an acronym the first time you use it. Looking at you MicroSoft (MS). No, I don't know what TLA* is, and now this document is completely useless to anyone who doesn't know what TLA is, especially since you've also not linked to any resources about TLA

    • Three Letter Acronym
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Is... is it not standard to say "Three Letter Acronym (TLA)" the first time? What kind of monster?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago

    This reminds me of the "WHY IS THERE CODE??? MAKE A FUCKING .EXE FILE AND GIVE IT TO ME" post that blew up a while back

    https://copypastatext.com/i-am-new-to-github-and-i-have-lots-to-say/

    And both boil down to

    • guides can be prioritized more in some projects and it might be in the best interest of the creators to do that

    • different guides are written for different audiences, sometimes a guide isn't meant for the average person

  • source
  • [–] 116 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    How about that worst of both worlds, the tutorial where the author starts out writing as if their audience only barely knows what a computer is, gets fed up partway through, and vomits out the rest in a more obtuse and less complete form than they would've otherwise?

    1. Turn on your computer. Make sure you turn on the "PC" (the big box part) as well as the "monitor" (TV-like part).

    2. Once your computer is ready and you can see the desktop, open your web browser. This might be called "Chrome", "Safari", "Edge", or something else. It's the same program you open to use "the Google".

    3. In the little bar near the top of the window where you can write things, type "https://www.someboguswebsite.corn/download/getbogus.html" and press the Enter key.

    4. Download the software and unarchive it to a new directory in your borklaving software with the appropriate naming convention.

    5. Edit the init file to match your frooping setup.

    6. If you're using Fnerp then you might need to switch off autoglomping. Other suites need other settings.

    7. Use the thing. You know, the thing that makes the stuff work right. Whatever.

    Congratulations! You're ready to go!

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 67 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sounds like typical Microsoft documentation to me. Explains in great detail what .NET is, where you can download it from, then jumps straight to the advanced topic they're covering without any of the intermediate knowledge covered or even linked to (but perhaps referred to only vaguely in passing as an acronym, again with no link, this time no link to what "TLA" is actually short for, so you're searching for it is fruitless as well).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think TLA means "Three Letter Acronym" in some circles. So like, DBA would be a TLA meaning "database administrator" for example. Didn't read the article to get the context though, so not sure if it fits

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Yes, TLA is a three letter acronym. A four letter acronym, on the other hand, is an ETLA, or “Enhanced Three Letter Acronym”. For advanced cases, you can get an EETLA (or XETLA) for Expanded/Extended Enhanced Three Letter Acronym.

    Just so you know.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    I think TLA means “Three Letter Acronym” in some circles

    Yes, that was why I used it. Microsoft doco is full of unexplained TLA's - you have to already know what it means and how to use the thing. You knew what TLA meant. Now read the Miscrosoft doco where you don't know what any of the MS TLA's mean, and they don't tell you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 78 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    At least once in their life, every tech person should be forced to teach someone like my mum how to use a piece of technology.

    That will very quickly change your perspective on what counts as user friendly.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Pretty sure every tech person at some point or another has had to do exactly that. And not just their mom, but their dad, and their extended family, and their parent’s friends who have a random problem, etc

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And why? Because none of them can read the fucking manual! And you'll say they don't try, but many of them have tried. Once. And all they learned was that it wouldn't do them any good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Because the manual often doesn't cover what they're trying to do, or finding reliable information online is it's own struggle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I taught basic computer literacy. I am a software developer. It's tough to reframe my own knowledge so drastically, but the new perspective also makes me question why so many things are wrong with current tech (particularly UI/UX).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I think the issue is that you need to understand who your users actually are. Documentation for a library intended to be used by a reasonably competent software engineer is going to have different requirements vs documentation for a cli utility aimed at Arch btw Linux users vs documentation for a program to help Grandma organize family photos.

    If you throw a terminal command at Grandma she's going to panic and call her grandchild. If you put instructions for extracting a tarball in your library docs the programmer is going to get bored and skip ahead.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Me, a (mostly) backend developer, reading a Medium post on how to make your computer display a div using Awesome New Web Framework (TM)

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Every front-end guide, despite modern HTML/CSS3/ES6+ being completely viable for building an entire web application without dependencies: "first, install npm and npx and npy and npppp2 and then run 'npz create-huge-boilerplate-folder'. Now go edit arbitrarily_named_file.yaml to add requirements a, b, and banana. Now you can edit path/to/hidden/entrypoint.jsx to return 'Hello, World!' and then run 'npz bloated-dev-http-server' and navigate to http://127.0.0.1:9001/index to view it! Simple!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I hear that. I was refactoring a codebase and they used a special library for tooltips. There are two tool tips on the entire site and the library uses its own perverse syntax.

    I've never got into modern JS frameworks because they seem to be utterly insane. If you need all that to build a site, you need to work on your fundamentals.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago

    “first, install npm and npx and npy and npppp2 and then run ‘npz create-huge-boilerplate-folder’. Now go edit arbitrarily_named_file.yaml to add requirements a, b, and banana. Now you can edit path/to/hidden/entrypoint.jsx to return ‘Hello, World!’ and then run ‘npz bloated-dev-http-server’ and navigate to http://127.0.0.1:9001/index to view it! Simple!”

    Yep, Microsoft doco is like that too

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I think the blogger is more technical than they let on:

    • understands how to write footnotes
    • structures lists correctly
    • runs their own blog with custom domain name.

    I've known programmers struggle with markdown.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well that's because markdown is for documentation, and we all know programmers don't know how to write documentation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    You can be pretty technical/capable and still write that article (especially if you have technical expertise outside programming). I have never felt so seen.

    I worked my way up from arduino -> RasPi -> Debian -> Self hosting quite a few things. I'm very much a hobbyist/novice, but I'm used to learning. It is so hard to read some documentation and understand what something even does sometimes. This goes double for incredibly useful tools for monitoring/implementing other tools. Like I swear I read the kubernetes descriptions 30x before I realized what in the hell it actually does, and now I'm probably about to break my entire home network with it because I think it's cool as hell.

    Also, to your comment specifically: I can get sensors on PCBs I personally made collecting data, throwing it through my own MQTT broker, hosting a dashboard etc, all at a remote site across state lines. I have no idea wtf markdown is. I use yaml for HA stuff with the ESPs, but I don't know why markdown is a thing and it's not just python.

    And I am 1000% sure there is a very good reason for 98% of this. But yes I found this article hilarious. In my personal circle of hell all nouns end in "-ly".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    The issue here is that the author of that post, and potentially the fictional author of the thing being lampooned, are not drawing a distinction between a tutorial (or an explanation) and a how-to.

    https://diataxis.fr/

    Either you want to get a task done, or you want to spend a lot longer learning how to work that out for yourself.

    (Many tutorials will include small set of how-to-like instructions because emulating the actions of a master will improve one's vocabulary of what can be done as well as how it is achieved.)

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago*

    I like her "written by a human" badge. Never saw one before. Gotta say I was wondering, which probably lends to her point.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Reminds me of one of my favourite Xkcd.
    Although I guess we are more in this one, really.

    I'm really impressed by people who can write stuff that makes kinda sense, while being complete gibberish. Very funny and y'all need to remember where you are.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    You sure that's a tutorial and not the "about" page of half of github, where you have no fucking clue what the project is about?

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    asdg a=-do —cd go cd stay —sususudododo baby shark

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah, documentation isn't as good as it could be, and it would increase the accessibility of software if it was better.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The amount of time and skill it takes to write excellent and accessible documentation is just not reasonable for most developers, unless you have dedicated technical writers or it's a personal project without true deadlines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    So what? It may arguably be not a developer's fault, but it is everyone's problem, given the growing dystopian alternatives to an accessible distributed software ecosystem. A problem can be acknowledged without admitting blame. Happy cake day btw.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    I fucking HATE it when the fisterfunk will not talk to the shamrock portal or even send beep-boops back to the Snarfus!

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    As a developer, that is also how I read tutorials written by other developers.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (15 children)

    The more advanced the level of knowledge on something the more foundation knowledge somebody has to have to even begin to understand things at that level.

    It would be pretty insane to in a tutorial for something at a higher level of expertise, include all the foundational knowledge to get to that level of expertise so that an absolute beginner can understand what's going on.

    Imagine if you were trying to explain something Mathematical that required using Integrals and you started by "There this symbol, '1' which represents a single item, and if you bring another single item, this is calling addition - for which we use the symbol '+' and the count of entities when you have one single entity and 'added' another single entity is represented by the symbol '2'. There is also the concept of equality, which means two matematical things represent the same and for which the symbol we use is '=' - writting this with Mathematical symbols, '1 + 1 = 2'" and built the explanation up from there all the way to Integrals before you could even start to explain what you wanted to explain in the first place.

    That said, people can put it in "recipe" format - a set of steps to be blindly followed without understanding - but even there you have some minimal foundational knowlegde required - consider a cooking recipe: have you ever seen any that explains how does one weight ingredients or what is "boiling" or "baking"?

    So even IT "recipes" especially designed so that those with a much lower level of expertise than the one required to actually understand what's going on have some foundational knowledge required to actually execute the steps of the recipe.

    Last but not least I get the impression that most people who go to the trouble of writting about how to do something prefere to do explanations rather than recipes, because there's some enjoyment in teaching about something to others, which you get when you explain it but seldom from merely providing a list of steps for others to blindly follow without understanding.

    So, if one wants to do something way above the level of expertise one has, look for "recipe" style things rather than explanations - the foundational expertise required to execute recipes is way lower than the one required to undertand explanations - and expect that there are fewer recipes out there than explanations. Further, if you don't understand what's in a recipe then your expertise is below even the base level of that recipe (for example, if somebody writes "enter so and so in the command prompt" and you have no fucking clue what a "command prompt" is, you don't meet the base requirements to even blindly follow the recipe), so either seek recipes with an even lower base level or try and learn those base elements.

    Further, don't even try and understand the recipe if your expertise level is well below what you're trying to achieve: sorry but you're not going to get IT's "Integrals" stuff if your expertise is at the level of understanding "multiplication".

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    "That said, people can put it in "recipe" format - a set of steps to be blindly followed without understanding - but even there you have some minimal foundational knowlegde required"

    Something that's quite interesting is that apparently one of the core components of how Latin and Greek used to be taught in fancy public schools (especially in like, Isaac Newton's era) was that students would be made to copy out sections from classical literature (such as the Odyssey). Obviously this would be happening alongside lessons involving basic grammar, but I've seen some scholars suggest that this kind of blind repetition was a key component to the language learning, and that it may even be useful for learning languages in a modern context.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I Prefer a playbook to a recipe card. The playbook should spell out the goal and the 'why's of the steps. Because if the process throws an error due to upgraded code etc, then you can be stuck at step one with no path forward. With some playbook annotation you at least know expected out come and why you are running a command etc.

    When I have gone to docker hub I always view multiple images and see what their writeup is like. Some just assume you 100% know all dockers subtleties, some have a one liner, but there will be a helpfull soul who spells out what steps to do, and what the best options to set etc. Like a mini tutorial.

    I find the mini tutorial to be widely beneficial, because it removes the blackbox nature, and gives new onboarding users a chance to grasp the concepts docker works with.

    It's like the difference between going to a mechanic that has you sit by the coffee machine in the office while they change your brakes and they come back and say "I swapped the new pads in", vs them pulling up a chair in the shop and explaining the process "here I'm wirebrushing the back of the wheel and the hub, to make sure when it goes back on there is no corrosion debris stopping a parallel fit..now I'm applying high temp grease so that the hub and wheel don't sieze together from corrosion and make next removal easy"

    The info is probably useless to a seasoned mechanic that had a broken hand so had somebody else do their brake work, but highly useful to the next gen of person that can absorb it and know whats and whys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    It’s like the difference between going to a mechanic that has you sit by the coffee machine in the office ...

    Good example. I just wanted to add that the place I go to for tyres, if there's some kind of issue (like with balance or alignment), sometimes they even take me into the workshop (where customers are usually not allowed) to show me what the issue is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, that's much better.

    Personally I detest not understanding what's going on when following a guide to do something, so I really dislike recipe style.

    That said, I mentioned recipes because recipes meant to be blindly followed are the style of guide which has the lowest possible "required expertise level" of all.

    I supposed a playbook properly done (i.e. a dumbed down set by step "do this" guide but with side annotations which are clearly optional reading, explaining what's going on for those who have the higher expertise levels needed to understand them) can have as low a "required expertise level" as just a plain recipe whilst being a much nicer option because people who know a bit more can get more from it that they could from just a dumbed down recipe.

    That said, it has to be structured so that it's really clear that those "explanation bits" are optional reading for the curious which have the knowhow to understand them, otherwise it risks scaring less skilled people who would actually be able to successfully do the taks by blindly following the step-by-step recipe part of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    That said, it has to be structured so that it's really clear that those "explanation bits" are optional reading for the curious which have the knowhow to understand them

    Yep, totally. This past year I spent a lot of time setting up an LMS with content.
    I included sections that were tips, good to know, for awareness, etc.

    Maybe only 1 out of every 20 users might expand the section, but if they do then there is a clear explanation of why this particular thing functions this way and how to make it work in alternate usecases. Images and explanation, before and after, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    It would be pretty insane to in a tutorial for something at a higher level of expertise, include all the foundational knowledge to get to that level of expertise

    You don't need to include it all. You just need to mention it as pre-requisite knowledge, and link to resources about it for those who don't have that knowledge. See Creating MAUI UI's in C#

    I get the impression that most people who go to the trouble of writting about how to do something prefere to do explanations rather than recipes

    Good documentation includes both. i.e. step-by-step guide, with explanations. See above.

    so either seek recipes with an even lower base level

    All documentation should cater to all levels. See above.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I think your tutorial depends too much on your editor UI. It reminds me of those tutorials (often written by Microsoft) where the IDE has changed enough to break the tutorial. This made the tutorial completely useless, because none of them would explain what I actually needed: the magic thing their IDE did in terms of essentials (text files, basic commands), so I could reproduce the effect.

    This is different in the unix world, which favors tool-agnostic approaches in terms of text files & basic commands. Even as tooling & technology changes, I can usually look up the meaning of the text & those commands to update them.

    That's the most important I think: not the answer itself, but where the answer comes from, so I can go back there when I need to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think your tutorial depends too much on your editor UI

    You mean the UI which is specified in the pre-requisites, that UI? 😂 It's not a bug, it's a feature - no bloat from going through everything twice (once for VS, once for VS Code). That's why it's in the pre-requisites.

    It reminds me of those tutorials (often written by Microsoft) where the IDE has changed enough to break the tutorial.

    You know I needed to write this because Microsoft hasn't written a tutorial for this topic, at all, right? That does remind me though, MAUI have changed the parameters for Grids - I better check that part of my tutorial is still valid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    It’s not a bug, it’s a feature

    It's a bad one: if I'm unable to get that version of your IDE, the tutorial becomes useless. If it had stuck to programming essentials like the source code & configuration files, then it'd have enduring value as the reader could understand without unnecessary concealment of basic information dependent on an IDE.

    no bloat from going through everything twice (once for VS, once for VS Code)

    Not implied: the tutorial would properly focus on the programming without IDE complications as it shows the files generated & dependencies linked. (eg, "I did this in my IDE: here's what it did".) The reader could in principle use any text editor. It's not an IDE tutorial.

    Microsoft hasn’t written a tutorial for this topic, at all, right?

    And you made another Microsoft-grade tutorial: that's not a compliment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

    if I’m unable to get that version of your IDE, the tutorial becomes useless.

    No it doesn't. Clicking on the link gives you the latest version, which obviously is above the minimum version.

    without unnecessary concealment of basic information dependent on an IDE

    Haven't concealed anything - it's there in the pre-requisites

    “I did this in my IDE: here’s what it did”

    I have many screenshots showing exactly that.

    The reader could in principle use any text editor

    No they can't. Several times I cover the Intellisense options which make it easy. This isn't available in a text editor, hence the pre-requisite of using Visual Studio if you want to follow this blog.

    It’s not an IDE tutorial

    It's not meant to be. It covers what you need to know to do what I have done in the blog.

    And you made another Microsoft-grade tutorial

    Nope! They don't include pre-requisites at all, never mind links to them, never mind step-by-step processes with screenshots, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    For "all documentation" to "cater to all levels" it would have to explain to people "how do you use a keyboard" and everything from there upwards, because there are people at that level hence it's part of "all levels".

    I mean the your own example of good documentation starts with an intro of "goals" saying:

    "Visual Studio (VS) does not (currently) provide a blank .NET Multi-platform Application User Interface (MAUI) template which is in C# only. In this post we shall cover how to modify your new MAUI solution to get rid of the XAML, as well as cover how to do in C# code the things which are currently done in XAML (such as binding). We shall also briefly touch on some of the advantages of doing this."

    For 99% of people almost all that is about as understandable as Greek (expect for Greek people, for whom it's about as understandable as Chinese).

    I mean, how many people out there in the whole World (non-IT people as illustrated in the actual article linked by the OP) do you think know what the hell is "Visual Studio", ".Net", "Multi-platform Application User Interface", "template", "C#", "XAML", "binding" (in this context).

    I mean, if IT knowledge was a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 the greatest, you're basically thinking it's "catering to all levels" when an explanation for something that is level 8 knowledge (advanced programming) has a baseline required level of 7 (programming). I mean, throw this at somebody that "knows how to use Excel" which is maybe level 4 and they'll be totally lost, much less somebody who only knows how to check their e-mail using a browser without even properly understanding the concept of "browser (like my father) which is maybe level 2 (he can actually use a mouse and keyboard, otherwise I would've said level 1).

    I think you're so way beyond the average person in your expertise in this domain that you don't even begin to suspect just how little of our domain the average person knows compared to an mere programmer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    it would have to explain to people “how do you use a keyboard”

    No it wouldn't. You just link to resources about pre-requisite knowledge.

    and everything from there upwards

    Nope. Exact same thing applies to all pre-requisite knowledge.

    For 99% of people almost all that is about as understandable as Greek

    Now scroll down to the pre-requisite knowledge which has links to things explaining ALL of that.

    how many people out there in the whole World (non-IT people as illustrated in the actual article linked by the OP) do you think know what the hell is “Visual Studio”, “.Net”, “Multi-platform Application User Interface”, “template”, “C#”, “XAML”, “binding” (in this context)

    Exact same number as there is people capable of clicking on the provided links about them in the pre-requisite knowledge section.

    which is maybe level 4 and they’ll be totally lost,

    ...until they read the links in the pre-requisite knowledge, and then they will understand all of it.

    I think you’re so way beyond the average person in your expertise in this domain

    says person who didn't even scroll past the introductory paragraph! 😂 You think people try to learn things by reading only the introductory paragraph?? 😂

    you don’t even begin to suspect just how little of our domain the average person knows compared to an mere programmer

    And yet, weirdly, if you keep reading you'll find it caters to people who know nothing about it 😂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Cool but nobody's about to link to prerequisite information like typing on a keyboard. Same for math, a book focusing on integration isn't going to say "read this book for the basics of addition btw".

    And why should one even cater to that? If a person is interested enough they can just.. look up the things they don't understand, that's not exactly hard

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Cool but nobody’s about to link to prerequisite information like typing on a keyboard.

    they say to someone who does indeed link to all pre-requisite knowledge. 😂 You know some Tech people do indeed recommend doing a touch-typing course, right?

    Same for math, a book focusing on integration isn’t going to say “read this book for the basics of addition btw”

    I'm a Maths teacher. You'll find that Maths textbooks do indeed run through any pre-requisites for the topic. e.g. "We discussed back in Chapter 2...".

    And why should one even cater to that?

    Because it's useless to a large chunk of your audience if you don't.

    If a person is interested enough they can just… look up the things they don’t understand,

    No they just can't, not when no information at all has been given on what this is so that you have something to search for. See Microsoft doco where they use TLA's, don't tell you what the TLA is short for, don't link to any information about the TLA, and searching for "TLA" (since they've not told you what TLA is short for) fails to bring up any information about this thing they are talking about. Now the tutorial is completely useless to you because you have no idea what they're talking about and can't find anything about what they're talking about. "Draw the rest of the owl"

    that’s not exactly hard

    It's very hard when you have no search keywords at all to work with.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    So basically Swift on macOS, except this made much more sense. 👍

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    How I, a developer read most developer blogs too. No shame in admitting that I lack knowledge, except my anxiety don't cut me such slack.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, you are not wrong here.

    What I regularly have to deal with is about as bad. Big project, and every upgrade replaces one key element. They have never heard of backwards compatibility. If they don't like a subset in their system, they replace it. Complete with different API calls, structures, and calling conventions. And they may document parts of it three versions later. If at all. Some documentation is basic Doxygen - just list the function parameters, and that's it. I've seen cases where the documentation of the rather critical parameter "flags" was just the word "flags". I've seen cases where the return value was documented only as "status". Not even with a notion whether 0==success and 0!=failure or vice versa.

    And no, it is not a closed application. They have an "extension" folder for user-supplied extensions. The problem: If it is not a core extension that has been updated with the main project, the first thing after an upgrade is finding out where your formerly working extension critical to your project now fails, because they just happened to think that the call interface for the boogaloo object need a complete overhaul. Maybe it needed an overhaul, but then at least keep the older interface alive for at least a few versions after documenting the new interface and marking the old one as deprecated.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago*

    I’ve seen cases where the documentation of the rather critical parameter “flags” was just the word “flags”.

    In Microsoft documentation it would just say "FLGs", with no explanation of what FLG is, nor any links to resources about FLGs. you either already know what it is or you now can't continue any further with the documentation (because a search for FLG also fails to find what it is). Throughout their documentation it is heavily assumed you are a long-time Microsoft programmer and already know all of this. i.e. it is completely unwelcoming to Microsoft beginners (and even some who aren't beginners)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    My God y'all can't just let a joke be a joke if there's an option for you to be correct instead, LMAO

    Edit: I just scrolled through all the comments and saw that the large majority of the replies here are very long, multi-paragraph comments. Y'all ok? Did this post touch a nerve with some of you? LMFAO

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Imagine a chemistry lab tutorial aimed at 9th grade students getting "as a non-chemist, this reads as gibberish" comments from first graders. Nobody would blame the tutorial authors.

    People need to start putting in the effort. There is no such thing as learning for free.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    If it's an instruction to a dishwasher liquid, you better write it for first-graders.

    Sure, if you write a documentation to some developer tools, use developer language.

    But if it's something you expect regular folk to use, think of how much more people could use it if they wouldn't need to learn something entirely out of their field of expertise to use it.

    You can make dishwashing liquid kit that would require extensive knowledge in organic chemistry to use. It would be cheap and darn simple to develop. You could release it today! You just...shouldn't.

    Remember people have their lives, and shouldn't be forced to comprehend everything around them at a professional level. Many developers seem to forget about it A LOT somehow, shifting it to the user and saying "I'm done here", sitting in the bubble of experts and treating users like stupid rats who can't simply get a computer science degree to use their computer. As a food technologist, I recently developed a premix for home-baking of phenylalanine-free pastry, and 70% of the work was making it idiot-proof. It is true for any field, yet it is important. People can't learn everything every time they need something, and it's not their fault.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    use developer language

    Microsoft uses Microsoft language, and the only people who understand it are people who have been Microsoft programmers for a long time.

    sitting in the bubble of experts

    Yep, the Microsoft ecosystem is completely unwelcome to newbies. It's by experts for experts, and everyone else can go to hell

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    RTFM is a form of self help that really should return to the modern zeitgeist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    For people to RTFM, you need clear and concise manuals for different groups of users.

    It's no use addressing most IT-related manuals without prerequisite knowledge and practical experience.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I haven't read the article but from the title and header alone, it already reminded me my experience of hosting Lemmy with 0 experience with self hosting. I learned how to start a docker and host a very basic stuff according to docker tutorial, no issue, but as i venture into hosting Lemmy where people keep saying "it's very easy!", i keep failing to do so because the tutorial itself written with a lot of jargon and also missing step (i remember running into a part where the tutorial asked me to just fill in necessary stuff. Which necessary stuff???), i eventually given up. Not sure if they rewrite it recently but i can't be bother with these anymore.

    The point here i assume is sometime dev with tons of experience expect people to know what they know, and then written stuff in heavy jargon for the basic tutorial. It's a curse of knowledge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago

    “it’s very easy!”

    A lot of experienced people say that, and it isn't to a beginner. The infamous example in Maths circles is "the proof is left as an exercise for the reader". In other words, "I couldn't be bothered writing this because I'm assuming you already know how to do it".

    It’s a curse of knowledge

    Yep, the people who write the Microsoft documentation assume that the readers know everything they already know.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

    Imagine a chemistry lab tutorial aimed at 9th grade students getting “as a non-chemist, this reads as gibberish” comments from first graders. Nobody would blame the tutorial authors

    I tutor Maths. I have a Year 12 student who has forgotten things they were taught in Year 8, and the teacher has done no revision of it in class. Now guess why this student needs a tutor 😂

    People need to start putting in the effort.

    The people writing the documentation, yes. They need to say what the prerequisite knowledge is, and include links to it for those who don't know it (or remember it). Only takes a few minutes to do that. See Creating MAUI UI's in C#

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    33 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post