Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!tci!spicer From: spicer@tci.UUCP (Steve Spicer) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: <522@tci.UUCP> Date: 2 Apr 91 16:10:22 GMT References: <20106@alice.att.com> <1991Mar26.191259.14470@i88.isc.com> <27F4D4BE.716@tct.uucp> Reply-To: spicer@tci.bell-atl.com Organization: Technology Concepts Inc. Sudbury MA Lines: 24 In article jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: >>Jim, any tool *must* be evaluated without reference to the milieu from >>which it sprang. To do otherwise is to discard ideas because of the >>people espousing them, which is a truly close-minded course. > >Spurious in the extreme. If the only people using a tool are incompetent, >then what does it matter if the tool itself is value-neutral? After all, >shouldn't one judge a tool by the quality of the work produced through >its use? How else, in fact, WOULD you judge a tool? Thanks, Jim. That's as fine an argument for gun control as I've ever seen. After all, since most people using guns on our city streets seem to be criminals, then we should definitely get rid of the guns, right? DON'T START A GUN CONTROL THREAD. It was an exaggerated EXAMPLE to make a point, OK? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Steven Spicer/spicer@tci.bell-atl.com Is your design so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, or so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies? -- suggested by a quote from C.A.R. Hoare