MathGroup Archive 2005

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

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



  • Prev by Date: Re: Mathematical Modeling Problem II
  • Next by Date: Re: Units, simplification
  • Previous by thread: Re: Mathematica goes Bad
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Mathematica goes Bad