Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux
- From: "Niall Douglas" <s_fsfeurope2 nedprod.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:42:34 -0000
On 7 Dec 2003 at 11:01, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
Software is very, very different from other types of creative work -
it's a direct engineering solution. Not plans for a solution, an
*actual* solution.
This is a unusual distinction. What about l10n information in a
program -- is that software? What about software integrated in text?
Where do you draw that line? What about marked-up text? Where are you
drawing the line with texts? Writing HTML, hell, writing Word
documents, requires technical knowledge.
The line gets drawn when binary data stops specifying a solution -
therefore HTML is not a solution, though scripts embedded in it might
be.
Thus, it requires a level of technical knowledge quite beyond most
other areas of engineering and vastly beyond other creative works.
Most people can write a book or draw a picture with no special
training.
Perhaps they received special training from a young age in a school?
:) I know more than a dozen computer languages and I can assure you
that learning a single natural language is more difficult than
learning all of those computer languages.
That's because human languages are very inconsistent - there are less
constructs you can infer from the grammar and more special cases need
to be learned. Computer languages like maths are always deducible so
general purpose maths skills make it very easy. I can guarantee you
that some types of people would never understand a computer language
no matter what!
Designing a bridge requires technical knowledge of materials etc and
it gets progressively more technical with things like designing an
aircraft. However, software is quite something else again - not only
do you need a certain level of technical knowledge just to operate a
computer, you need way way more to design software plus there is
very little tolerance for error - - a comma in the wrong place, and
your software isn't going to work. There is more give for error in
designing a jet engine.
Are you a computer programmer? In any modern language? The motto for
perl is, "TWTOWTDI: There's More Than One Way To Do It" and it means
it. I think that programming is a lot more creative than you think.
No - of course software is very creative, perhaps even more creative
than other creative things. Why? Because writing software is a pure
exercise in manipulating complexity - you have no physical
limitations except perhaps how fast you can type (and compilation
speed sometimes) - it's why a six man programming team can outdo
another team of hundreds.
However, compare designing a bridge to writing a C program. Not only
can you screw up syntaxically, you might dereference a dangling
pointer or many other things. Move to Haskell - much less chance of
crashing the computer, but it's also much harder to get the code just
right (at least I find this). Still, a tiny mistake in Haskell leads
to a completely malfunctioning program whereas leaving out a rivet in
a bridge probably won't be a problem.
True, but respecting a good programmer doesn't mean you give a lot of
value to their opinion on non-technical matters (although, perhaps it
means you give them a listen). There seems to be a growing amount of
consensus that on everything except software, ESR is a nut. I can name
half a dozen extremely high profile programmers who's technical
opinion I respect and whose social or political opinion I completely
take issue with. *Any* programmer will have their own lists. We are
not as uncritical as you imply.
Programmers are more bitchy than others - Arlene McCarthy said in the
EP that she'd never experienced such nastiness from the concerned
public :). Nevertheless, my point was more concentrating on software -
I think RMS has got it very wrong about the GPL indeed and that
whole mantra is dangerous for the quality & innovativeness of
software. But many believe in his mantra because he is considered one
of the elite programmers.
I do however support the creation systems (like copyleft) that not
only block the trend toward proprietarization of information but give
a working alternative for a more *effective* form of information
creation and manipulation
Copyleft can only last as long as copyright. If it's doomed, so is
copylist as we know it though something else may improve upon it.
I take the view that all copyright & patent law needs throwing away
and redesigning from the ground up. Copyright in particular is
horribly archaic and it is deeply unfortunate that we have enshrined
it in UN conventions. Still, I guess they weren't to know.
The TRIPS agreement (not US) is less than a decade old IIRC. "They"
knew full well what they were doing -- enshrining and globalizing the
rights of the folks with money and power.
Precisely - because economists have advised the US government that
the next big area of revenue is information. Securing control of that
as the world's biggest generator of information was seen as vital.
Cheers,
Niall