Re: Re: Mathematica goes Bad
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg59560] Re: [mg59536] Re: Mathematica goes Bad
- From: "David Park" <djmp at earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:08:50 -0400 (EDT)
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Ron, It takes both. They have to work together. It certainly takes more than one because we all have our blind spots. Good content, well presented, means smart people with smart editors. David Park djmp at earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/ From: Ronald Bruck [mailto:bruck at imperator.usc.edu] To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net In article <ddcb5u$5cu$1 at smc.vnet.net>, stephen layland <layland at wolfram.com> wrote: [content deleted, only .sig reproduced] > -- > /*------------------------------*\ > | stephen layland | > | Documentation Programmer | > | http://members.wri.com/layland | > \*------------------------------*/ > Well, this IS interesting. In another thread, someone laments that the Mathematica programmers should be more involved with the documentation. This job title appears to put Stephen Layland square in the middle. The classical complaint is that when you leave the documentation to the programmers, it's unintelligible and leaves out lots of stuff; when you hire a documentation team, they're often ignorant of the functionality of the program, and leave out lots of stuff. I'm not quite sure what a "documentation programmer" DOES. Any elucidation? (Steve's web site is interesting, BTW.) --Ron Bruck