bryan@ihnet.UUCP (b. k. delaney) (05/09/85)
There seems to be this idea going around that unix is not user friendly, uses cryptic names for commands and is hard for non computer types to learn. Well this is simply not true. For example what about all of those non programer types who own Comodore 64 HOME computers? The real problem with unix is not unix, but very very very poor documentation. Hell most of the documentation I have seen on unix assumes you have a Phd in Computer Science. As to my reference about the Comodore 64, well, if you have never used a 64, go visit a friend who has one and you will see what I am talking about. ihuxf!bryan Bryan DeLaney
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (05/10/85)
In article <228@ihnet.UUCP> bryan@ihnet.UUCP (b. k. delaney) writes: >The real problem with >unix is not unix, but very very very poor documentation. >Hell most of the documentation I have seen on unix assumes >you have a Phd in Computer Science. actually, most of the documentation is for a unix guru with a bad memory. the rest of it requires a translation into english. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (Praiser of Bob) (05/14/85)
In article <1364@watdcsu.UUCP> herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) writes: >actually, most of the documentation is for a unix guru with a bad >memory. the rest of it requires a translation into english. The docs in /usr/man don't need translating. The important docs (in /usr/src) do need translating. <mike
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/20/85)
In article <941@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob) writes: >In article <1364@watdcsu.UUCP> herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) writes: >>actually, most of the documentation is for a unix guru with a bad >>memory. the rest of it requires a translation into english. > >The docs in /usr/man don't need translating. The important docs (in >/usr/src) do need translating. > > <mike I disagree in part. We have a BSD 4.2 system here, and the /usr/man documentation for the new features(especially sockets) is horrendous. I hope I never have to try and write code using these features, at least not unyil I am at a site with a source licence so that I can look at real code using them. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
ian@utcs.UUCP (Ian F. Darwin) (05/23/85)
>>actually, most of the documentation is for a unix guru with a bad >>memory. the rest of it requires a translation into english. > >The docs in /usr/man don't need translating. The important docs (in >/usr/src) do need translating. I've had this argument with others before. The man pages are meant as short summaries for human beings who know how to read and who believe that words mean what they say. The source code is written for dumb computers to interpret. Keep this in mind when people say that the source code is easier to read than the manuals; they're written for a different audience. -- Ian Darwin, Toronto uucp: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!ian Envoy-100: I.Darwin Bitnet: ian@utoronto
munck@mitre-bedford.ARPA (05/26/85)
Aha, at last a clear statement of what drives me crazy about C and UNIX. > The man pages are meant as short summaries for human beings ... > The source code is written for dumb computers to interpret. If you read that without a twinge, you're part of the problem. Source code SHOULD BE written for human beings, who are its most frequent and expensive readers, and secondarily for a very specialized, very infrequently-used (in comparison to the total amount of computing done) program called a compiler. Certainly in UNIX, where programs are meant to be read, understood, and changed by many people, the former consideration should weigh much more heavily than the latter. Yet they use C, which has to be mentally translated by the most guru-ie of wizards. In my opinion, the language that best supports writing of superbly human-readable programs at no significant expense in machine efficiency is Ada. I doubt that anyone will challenge that... -- Bob Munck, MITRE
gwyn@BRL.ARPA (VLD/VMB) (05/27/85)
Ada?? You gotta be kidding.. There is NO programming language that can force coders to write good code. Good programming is possible in C and not even as difficult as in many Pascal-based languages. Ditto for bad programming. Sort of like a sports car, isn't it?
g-frank@gumby.UUCP (05/28/85)
> Ada?? You gotta be kidding.. > > There is NO programming language that can force coders to write good > code. Good programming is possible in C and not even as difficult as > in many Pascal-based languages. Ditto for bad programming. Sort of > like a sports car, isn't it? No, C is a lot more like a dune buggy with no features, no accessories, and no way to keep even a moderately good driver from ultimately breaking his neck. -- Dan Frank Q: What's the difference between an Apple MacIntosh and an Etch-A-Sketch? A: You don't have to shake the Mac to clear the screen.