Dave Fayram wrote:
> This is what I consider to be good documentation. Rails is a
> particularly good case because it's a non-trivial library that recieves
> many, many patches. Often these patches even come from Ruby-Nubys. So
> clearly, Rails is easy to maintain (if a language novice can submit
> meaningful patches within a week, it's easy code). Yet it lacks the
> kind of documentation that the essay says it should have.

Hence the five or so Rails books due this summer.



James