> Melvin Smith wrote: > > What parts particularly bug you? Maybe we can address a few. > > Well, basically, AFAICT, virtually none of the parrot code > is adequately documented. So, pick a random entry point. :-)
First, you have to understand that what you are saying is quite inflammatory, regardless of its veracity. Saying "I'm not flaming here" does not make it so. :) There are certainly many places in your original email where you could have been less inflammatory towards the people that have contributed code and documentation to the Parrot project. There have been many requests for additional documentation in the past. Patches have even been refused for lack of documentation. Did you check the p6i mail archive to see if this issue has been brought up before? I'm sure you won't find anyone arguing the point that parrot needs more documentation. However, if it was as simple a matter as telling people that more documentation was needed, Parrot would have had ample documentation looong ago. If you want to have a request listened to, you should be direct in what you request. When Melvin asked you for particular places that we could improve upon, you responded with 'all of the above'. That's quite a big task to address, and not telling anyone any more than they already knew. Did you have problems learning any particular aspect of parrot? If so, that might be a good area to request additional documentation. From my vantage point, documentation is bad only if someone attempts to learn a particular area of the code and has trouble because of the lack of, or inadequacy of, the documentation for that task. Have you attempted to learn every aspect of parrot, such that you can verifiably say that all of parrot's documentation is lacking? Thanks for understanding, Mike Lambert
