On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That's a bit snarky. But no-one should have to read the documentation >> just to get it installed and to locate and use the most obvious >> features that have direct parallels in Enclojure. In particular, >> no-one has to with Enclojure. If there are extra install steps beyond >> "install and restart IDE" then there shouldn't be; if there are menu >> items whose names are misleading they should be renamed; etc. > > You're reinforcing obvious statements.
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that you thought CCW was working perfectly. From your own words, however, at least one of the two problems I noted in the above paragraph, and possibly both, seem to be present, so I assumed you didn't realize that they meant that it was not really working perfectly after all, but had significant problems; that you were OK with those quirks, and didn't consider them to be the serious impediments to growing CCW's user base that they actually are. But since you now say you find those statements "obvious" I am mystified at your tone. If you're aware of a) those problems and b) that they are undesirable, you should not be surprised in the slightest if a user installs CCW and then reports exactly what I just did. If the install procedure doesn't present any apparent documentation (or add items to the Help menu) you shouldn't be surprised if nobody reads some documentation that's sitting at some assembla or Google Code URL that nothing in the download-and-install procedure ever pointed them to. Nor should you be surprised if a user or prospective user googling the project automatically ignores assembla, github, and Google Code links -- visiting one of those big complicated source-repository-and-issue-tracking sites first thing is jumping in the deep end. They might go there eventually if they use the software for a while and then decide they are knowledgeable enough to maybe contribute; until then, when they consider themselves only a user or potential-user of the software, every link for it at any of those domains will be perceived (correctly or otherwise) as having a low likelihood of being useful to them. And snarkily suggesting that the user was remiss in not Ring TFM when TFM was never presented to them during install, nor was a link to it ever presented to them during install, nor did either appear in the Help menu, nor is there a reasonably-highly-ranked Google hit for the software's name that very clearly is pointing at end-user documentation, AND the user was attempting to do something that ordinarily should not require Ring TFM but merely browsing the menus within the software's interface, seems silly to me. > Now I'm tired today, so I'll stop feed you. I beg your pardon? Sorry to say this, but I think your English failed here, and in a way that doesn't allow for easy gleaning of your intended meaning. In particular I have no idea what word you intended where you put the word "feed". -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
