From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a24:5411:: with SMTP id t17mr7665414ita.10.1543860375608; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 10:06:15 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5403:: with SMTP id j3mr269384oth.2.1543860375300; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 10:06:15 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!q69no631881itb.0!news-out.google.com!y103-v6ni561ita.0!nntp.google.com!k10no630469itk.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:06:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6508fa19-5b93-471a-8b06-216907736b1b@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=176.130.29.212; posting-account=6yLzewoAAABoisbSsCJH1SPMc9UrfXBH NNTP-Posting-Host: 176.130.29.212 References: <9524b3ee-476f-4af6-ab83-b15a6c2a417c@googlegroups.com> <6508fa19-5b93-471a-8b06-216907736b1b@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <960eb922-6ea5-47d6-af48-289fff1f6fb5@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: GNATCOLL JSON Parsing From: briot.emmanuel@gmail.com Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 18:06:15 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54927 Date: 2018-12-03T10:06:14-08:00 List-Id: > I cant stand that kind of 'counter-productive' attitude. It is not a comp= etence issue, its just people want to get going, period. Personally I don't= have the time to get in the head of some authors, don't have the time to d= ive in their code (from the lib perspective I'm a client not a contributor)= and frankly not actually interested to understand until I know at least wh= at they publish actually works. So many projects are broken right from the = start. Interesting rant. Could you point us to some of the libraries you had made = available to others and that have great documentation ? You have a github a= ccount with no repository... Critics are easy. Writing documentation is really a difficult things. Some things are obvious= to anyone who has used Ada before. Should we keep repeating them in docume= ntation ? For instance, one of the difficult things for new Ada users are f= unctions returning string. Should we always have examples how to use declar= e blocks ? Definitely not. So you are not a contributor in the sense "please provide a patch", but you= are definitely a client in the sense of "please kindly provide additional = information on how to use such and such API". That's the price to pay to us= e open-source software. That said, there certainly are libraries that could use some higher-level d= ocumentation. Just ask their authors to do it, explaining your difficulties= . (hint: if you start by telling them they have a God complex, you might as w= ell not bother sending a message). Emmanuel Author of a large part of GNATCOLL, but not GNATCOLL.JSON itself... And I a= m sure you could have similar critics for those other parts.