Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!mips!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc!noc.MR.NET!gacvx2.gac.edu!gacvx2.gac.edu!scott From: scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: IB documentation GONE? Message-ID: Date: 10 Mar 91 03:11:58 GMT References: <1991Mar9.185839.27800@engage.enet.dec.com> Distribution: usa,local Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College Lines: 85 Nntp-Posting-Host: texnext.gac.edu In-reply-to: tenny@ootool.dec.com's message of 9 Mar 91 18:52:08 GMTLines: 85 In article <1991Mar9.185839.27800@engage.enet.dec.com> tenny@ootool.dec.com (Dave Tenny) writes: I once posted a message which said "the docs are perfectly adequate". Unfortunately, I was wrong. The docs *were* perfectly adequate in 1.0, but in 2.0 all of the useful "concepts" manuals are missing. Anybody who wants to program the next (probably nearly everyone that owns one right now), really needs the concepts documentation to understand how to use IB, Objc, and Appkit. I asked someone at NeXT about this, and she told me that it wasn't the intention of NeXT to remove this useful information from the docset, and that they were working on new, improved concepts manuals. (If I understood her correctly, the conversation took place awhile ago). Well, the 1.0 concepts docs were _not_ adaquate. Sure, they worked for me and a few other individuals here at Gustavus, but most people are simply not willing to put in the time that I was willing to put in. The _real_ solution is for someone to write a book. I don't know that I really expect NeXT to come out with a really good solution. Not that they aren't capable, just that I've not seen many companies who have been capable of writing good tutorials for their computers - even the much larger companies have problems with this (IBM would be a prime candidate, there :-). The problem is that most people who would make the best book writers aren't the people who I'd like to have write the book. On the other side of the coin, most people who are knowledgeable enough aren't (IMHO) quite capable of making it understandable. I, for instance, would not care to do it (and I've been complemented on my writing skills from time to time). I don't mean to cut down the people I know out there who _are_ writing a book, I'm just making a generalization. So, what it comes down to is that someone needs to get 2 or 3 people together and do it. Preferrably "free", or semi-free, or at least cheap :-). The catch is that the NeXT market is still a little small for something like this. I'd like to suggest that we all "urge" NeXT to do this ASAP. If I were a new NeXT user with only 2.0 documentation available, I'd be very angry and confused about programming my machine. And we don't all have the time and money to spend going to NeXT Developer's School at $995 a pop. I don't think that you need to be a developer to get the technical documentation. We had the 1.0 tech docs long before we had someone sent out to NeXT for the camp. The technical docs themselves are cheap, at $95 for both developer's and list price. On the other hand, I've yet to see them, so who's to say what's in them at this point ( <-- that point raised so that I don't get your hopes up. I hope they are good, and help all of us work better. But, who's to say until we see them? ). If NeXT 2.1 will fix this, great, but let's make those docs available ASAP. I'm a little dissappointed in NeXT for a couple of decisions such as this. Another thing that comes to mind as missing is the libtext library and header files. While I was only using it in a couple places, and simple functions (I rewrote them), many people are not so lucky. The reasons I've heard for the dissappearance were that NeXT didn't like the versions in there and are probably going to supply better versions. But, I don't want to wait. What I'd have rather had happen would be for NeXT to distribute comments throughout the files explaining that they will not be around after 3.0, that there will be a replacement. Such as they did with the db library (which is to be replaced by the BTree objects). In this way, we can keep on working for the 6-12 months during which the new solution is not availiable. Oh, well. That is more or less spilled milk. Just don't do it in the future :-). Later, -- scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad "Tried anarchy, once. Found it had too many constraints . . ." "I smoke the nose Lucifer . . . Banana, banana."