Re: CGI::Prototype - SYNOPSIS shows arcane and heterodox inheritance

CGI::Prototype is open source. If you don't like the docs and think it should add things, submit a patch. You've obviosuly spent some time with the framework, so take what you've learned and give it back the the community by adding to the docs. At least you have docs: I learned CGI::Prototype with nothing but source. :)

If you want to learn how things work, you have to understand the Prototype design pattern and Class::Prototype. After that, you shouldn't have to worry about how things happen as long as they do happen.

No matter what you decide, you could be part of the solution rather than carping about what Randal is giving you for free.

--
brian d foy <bdfoy@cpan.org>

Comment on Re: CGI::Prototype - SYNOPSIS shows arcane and heterodox inheritance

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: CGI::Prototype - SYNOPSIS shows arcane and heterodox inheritance by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Jan 31, 2005 at 07:20 UTC
Is he really carping? He's carping about getting a mailinglist, but other than that I see him mostly taking notes as he learns. To me that seems like contribution in its own right, albeit messy and incoherent in nature. The tired adage that “it's open source so if you don't like it then do something about it” is a sometimes all too convenient way to deflect complaints. There is no entitlement to good documentation any more than there is to the code itself or any other effort on the author's part, of course, but we need to understand that lack of documentation, no matter how good and clear the code, always severely degrades its quality. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^3: CGI::Prototype - SYNOPSIS shows arcane and heterodox inheritance by brian_d_foy (Abbot) on Jan 31, 2005 at 15:05 UTC
I'm not using a tired adage. I see a person who's putting their head in the code, figuring a lot of things out, writing a lot about things, but not doing anything other than carping to change the docs. He has the knowledge and the time to elaborate on the stuff he wants added to the docs, so he has the time to patch the docs. We all know that a lack of documentation is bad, so instead of talking about it, I'd like to see someone offer to fix it. So far I've seen a lot of debate and no patches, and the situation hasn't changed. I'm not deflecting complaints: I'm encouraging good citizenship and suggesting the course of action that is better suited to get results. Obviously what he's doing now is not satisfying him. -- brian d foy <bdfoy@cpan.org>	[reply]
Re^2: CGI::Prototype - use base? by metaperl (Curate) on Jan 31, 2005 at 10:37 UTC
No matter what you decide, you could be part of the solution rather than carping about what Randal is giving you for free. I consider my posts a way for him to get an idea of what people don't understand and how he can beef up the docs... given that his docs are probably the weakest part of his distribution, that is a significant contribution. Also, given that he has repeatedly ignored my requests for a mailing list, I see this is as a good place for many people of about my aptitude and patience to get the same question answered once. This module is going to create some interesting design questions as development goes deeper. These are things that are beyond the mere technical aspects of prototyped-based programming. A bug report queue is not the place for it.	[reply]
Re^3: CGI::Prototype - use base? by brian_d_foy (Abbot) on Jan 31, 2005 at 15:01 UTC
If you want a mailing list, just set one up. There is no law that says that Randal has to be the one to do it. You have something you want to talk about with other people, so take the action you need to do that. -- brian d foy <bdfoy@cpan.org>	[reply]