"James G. Britt " <ruby.talk.list / gmail.com> wrote in message news:<186bd07d0502140719451b3364 / mail.gmail.com>...
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:47:12 +0900, Pit Capitain <pit / capitain.de> wrote:
> > JC schrieb:
> > > - Five minutes of documentation would have made using the debugger
> > > such as it is much smooother.
> > 
> > I'm sure you did what you suggested and sent the missing documentation to the
> > FreeRide maintainers, did you?
> 
> If  JC did, that would be great. 
> 
> But if  JC didn't, so what?
> 
> It pains me when people thoughtful enough to point out errors and
> omissions are chided for failing to personally address the problems
> they are reporting.
> 
> It discourages people from making suggestions, which helps no one.   
> 
> Is JC the even best or correct person to write the proper
> documentation? It is one thing to note that documentation is unclear
> or incomplete, and quite another to provide an accurate remedy.
> 
> James

Yes, it does seem strange to suggest that someone who doesn't know how
to use the tool - and may never use it again, given the problems (I
suspect I'll recommend my client uses Python) - should write the docs.
Beside the obvious (or rather, really, REALLY obvious problems) the
idea of an ordinary user rather than a tool's author writing docs
misses the point that there maybe features and limitations that only
the author maybe able to document.