Xah's Edu Corner: Examples of Quality Technical Writing

[Xah Lee]

i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.

http://www.php.net/manual/en/

although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix lineage,
but if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is a
impeccability.

it has or possesses properties of:

• To the point and useful.

PHP has its roots in mundaness, like Perl and Apache. Its doc being
practicality oriented isn't a surprise, as are the docs of Perl and
Apache.

• Extreme clarity!

The doc is extremely well-written. The authors's writing skills
shows, that they can present their ideas clearly, and also that they
have put thoughts into what they wanted to say.

• Ample usage examples.

As with Perl's doc, PHP doc is not afraid to show example snippets,
yet not abuse it as if simply slapping on examples in lieu of proper
spec or discussion.

• Appropriate functions or keywords are interlinked.

This aspect is also well done in other quality docs, such as
Mathematica, Java, MS JScript, Perl's official docs.

• No abuse of jargons.

In fact, it's so well written that there's almost no jargons in its
docs, yet conveys its intentions to a tee. This aspect can also be seen
in Mathematica's doc, or Microsoft's JScript doc, for examples.

• No author masturbation. (if fact, you won't see a first-person
perspective, as is the case with most quality tech writing.)

We must truely appreciate the authors of the PHP doc. Because, PHP, as
a free shit in the unix shit culture, with extreme ties to Perl and
Apache (both of which has extremely motherfucked docs), but can wean
itself from a shit milieu and stand pure and clean to become a paragon
of technical writing.

------------
Reminder for the purpose of this post:

The world's mother fuckers are the community and doc writers of: Unix
(man pages), Perl, Apache, Python.

As i have alluded or expounded before, the unix & Apache are criminally
the worst, Perl being a close follow up. Python's on a class of its
own, being a mutated Computer Sciency fuck that is possibly even worse
on the whole than Perl's doc.

Here a sample list of a variety of quality technical writings:

• Mathematica
http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/

• Microsoft's JScript official docs

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...ndamentals.asp
• Emacs Lisp Introduction (by Robert J. Chassell)
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-lisp-intro/
(GNU project's documentations are almost always quality documentations.
For example, the official emacs and elisp docs ale both of high
quality.)

• Java official doc
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/index.html

Java, being a bottled-up inflexible language with incessant lies
backup by huge amounts of $money$, nevertheless hired professional
writers for its huge official documentation — produced a very well
done doc for a very complex language. (however, the official Java
Tutorial is a fucking crap)

• Scheme (R5RS)
http://www.schemers.org/Documents/St...5rs-Z-H-2.html

• Scheme (Teaching yourself Scheme in Fixnum Days)
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dorai/t-...eme-Z-H-1.html

These are all quality technical writings. They have different styles
and audiences and coverages. If you want to see clarity and concision,
see JScript, PHP, and Scheme intro. If you want to see clarity with
verbosity, see Emacs Lisp Intro. For clarity sans arcana yet covers
esoterica, see the Mathematica doc. Some of these are written for
people with no experience in programing, yet functions as equivalent to
teaching/documenting extremely advanced programing concepts. If you
want to see proper use of jargons at a IT professional level, see the
Java doc. If you want to see exemplary tech writing in a academic
style, see the Scheme R5RS.

Related essay:
Why OpenSource Documentation is of Low Quality
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...bni_papri.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

[Steve Holden]

Xah Lee wrote:
[...]

• No author masturbation. (if fact, you won't see a first-person
perspective, as is the case with most quality tech writing.)

We [...]

Will new readers please note that this author is well-known for posting
inflammatory and irrelevant material on many inappropriate network
newsgroups.
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/

[Alex Stapleton]

On 6 Dec 2005, at 04:55, Xah Lee wrote:

i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.

http://www.php.net/manual/en/

To be fair, the PHP manual is pretty good most of the time. I mean,
just imagine trying to use PHP *without* the manual?! It's not like
the language is even vaguely consistent.

[Pascal Bourguignon]

"Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> writes:

i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.

http://www.php.net/manual/en/

although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix lineage,
but if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is a
impeccability.

it has or possesses properties of:

• To the point and useful.

PHP has its roots in mundaness, like Perl and Apache. Its doc being
practicality oriented isn't a surprise, as are the docs of Perl and
Apache.

• Extreme clarity!

Do you have an "Approved by Xah Lee" seal logo they could put on their web page?

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/

"Remember, Information is not knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom;
Wisdom is not truth; Truth is not beauty; Beauty is not love;
Love is not music; Music is the best." -- Frank Zappa

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

Pascal Bourguignon wrote:

Do you have an "Approved by Xah Lee" seal logo they could put on their web page?

Funny, that'd *exactly* mirror the opinion I have of PHP :D

(btw, why is this posted to every newsgroup EXCEPT a PHP one? make us
feel good?)

--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.

[Sherm Pendley]

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.*********@web.de> writes:

btw, why is this posted to every newsgroup EXCEPT a PHP one?

Xah's a pretty well-known troll in these parts. I suppose he thinks someone
is going to take the bait and rush to "defend" the other languages or some
such nonsense.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

[Jon Perez]

Sherm Pendley wrote:

Xah's a pretty well-known troll in these parts. I suppose he thinks someone
is going to take the bait and rush to "defend" the other languages or some
such nonsense.

Actually, I think Xah often has a point, except he can't
seem to express it without resorting to profanity and
a controlled manner, thus giving the impression he's a
troll.

Also, he seems to be blissfully unaware of the concept
of netiquette. ;-)

[Erik Max Francis]

Jon Perez wrote:

Actually, I think Xah often has a point, except he can't
seem to express it without resorting to profanity and
a controlled manner, thus giving the impression he's a
troll.

Also, he seems to be blissfully unaware of the concept
of netiquette. ;-)

His "points" have about the same legitimacy as banging on the keyboard
until it breaks and then crying for an hour. At least if he did that,
we'd have to hear from him less.

--
Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
I want to know God's thought; the rest are details.
-- Albert Einstein

[Gerald Klix]

That's the most accurate description of Xah's behaviour I've read so far.

Jon Perez schrieb:

Sherm Pendley wrote:

Xah's a pretty well-known troll in these parts. I suppose he thinks someone
is going to take the bait and rush to "defend" the other languages or some
such nonsense.

Actually, I think Xah often has a point, except he can't
seem to express it without resorting to profanity and
a controlled manner, thus giving the impression he's a
troll.

Also, he seems to be blissfully unaware of the concept
of netiquette. ;-)

[Xah Lee]

Post-modernism, Academia, and the Tech Geeking fuckheads

• the Sokal Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

• SCIGen and World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and
Informatics Â*
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

• What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities, Xah Lee
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html

• Politics and the English Language, George Orwell
http://xahlee.org/p/george_orwell_english.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

[bradb]

I don't know about anyone else, but you'd impress me much more if you
didn't swear in your posts. I am personally not offended, but it does
lower your credibility in my eyes. Just a tip.

Brad

[Xah Lee]

recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.

i felt a sensation of neatness, as if php = Perl Improved, for a
dedicated job of server-side scripting. Everything is so-built-in, and
the integrated functions for web application programing such as
CGI/Database is so convenient. What a PRACTICALITY! It has gotten a
long way, even now with a independent interpreter and engine (Zend) for
embedded computation of any other mark-up lang. And, its array/hash is
kinda linguistically cleaner, by combining the two into one. (after
all, array indexes are unique, so they are denotationally and
mathematically list of keyed pairs (hashes) too) As for nested
structure, it does away with Perl's ${x}->{'whatnot'}[$x]->[$y{'z'}]
insanity. And I'm most impressed by its extremely well-written
documentation.

But as i know the lang more, my feeling changed, yet “Perl
Improved� is still apt, with a new interpretation.

see
http://tnx.nl/php

If Unix, Apache, Perl, MySQL etc shit can impact the world with
motherfucking evolutionary outrageous $free$ lies, why should we fault
Pretty Home Page?

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

[Roedy Green]

On 9 Dec 2005 11:15:16 -0800, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote, quoted
or indirectly quoted someone who said :

recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.

that's very lovely, but off topic. Trolling for language flame wars
belong is comp.lang.java.advocacy.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Roedy Green said something like:

On 9 Dec 2005 11:15:16 -0800, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote, quoted
or indirectly quoted someone who said :

recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.

that's very lovely, but off topic. Trolling for language flame wars
belong is comp.lang.java.advocacy.

I had plonked him back in May for this kind of crap. I suggest you do the
same.

--
If I can ever figure out how, I hope that someday I'll
succeed in my lifetime goal of creating a signature
that ends with the word "blarphoogy".

[IchBin]

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

Roedy Green said something like:

On 9 Dec 2005 11:15:16 -0800, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote, quoted
or indirectly quoted someone who said :

recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.

that's very lovely, but off topic. Trolling for language flame wars
belong is comp.lang.java.advocacy.

I had plonked him back in May for this kind of crap. I suggest you do the
same.

It's better just to ignore him because he is only looking for the
attention and pseudo respect..

"You don't put a fire out with gasoline".

--
Thanks in Advance...
IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA
http://weconsultants.servebeer.com/JHackerAppManager
__________________________________________________ ________________________

'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"'
-William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-)

[Jürgen Exner]

Roedy Green wrote:
Of course I have Xah plonked but thanks to your

On 9 Dec 2005 11:15:16 -0800, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote

[...] Perl, of which i have mastery.

I had the laugh of the week.
Thank you very much, you really made my day.

jue

[Tim Roberts]

"Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote:

recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.

i felt a sensation of neatness, as if php = Perl Improved, for a
dedicated job of server-side scripting.

The design of the PHP language is not too bad, and the standard library is
extensive. It is quite possible to write well-structured, class-based web
programs with PHP.

However, it seems that almost no one actually does so. Virtually all of
the vast PHP code samples on the web are crap. Maybe the simplicity of the
language encourages inexperienced programmers who write spaghetti code
without a thought to the structure; I don't know the exact cause, but I
have seen it more often than not.
--
- Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

[Dave Hansen]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:25:08 GMT in comp.lang.python, Tim Roberts
<ti**@probo.com> wrote:

[...]

The design of the PHP language is not too bad, and the standard library is
extensive. It is quite possible to write well-structured, class-based web
programs with PHP.

However, it seems that almost no one actually does so. Virtually all of
the vast PHP code samples on the web are crap. Maybe the simplicity of the
language encourages inexperienced programmers who write spaghetti code
without a thought to the structure; I don't know the exact cause, but I
have seen it more often than not.

This reminds me of a comment that John Levine (moderator of
comp.compilers) wrote in a post back in 1997: "It is my impression
that it's possible to write good programs in C++, but nobody does."

However, in the case of C++, I wouldn't blame "... the simplicity of
the language ..."

Regards,
-=Dave

--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

[gene tani]

Tim Roberts wrote:

"Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote:

recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.

i felt a sensation of neatness, as if php = Perl Improved, for a
dedicated job of server-side scripting.

The design of the PHP language is not too bad, and the standard library is
extensive. It is quite possible to write well-structured, class-based web
programs with PHP.

However, it seems that almost no one actually does so. Virtually all of
the vast PHP code samples on the web are crap. Maybe the simplicity of the
language encourages inexperienced programmers who write spaghetti code
without a thought to the structure; I don't know the exact cause, but I
have seen it more often than not.
--
- Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

agreed, once you explain MVC, it's pretty hard to argue against it.

Keeping from getting defaced is another matter. About a year ago, this
page (or somethign very similar) was php.net's *homepage*, I almost
fell over when i saw it. Moral of hte story, don't use shared server.

http://www.php.net/security-note.php

[Tin Gherdanarra]

Xah Lee wrote:

Post-modernism, Academia, and the Tech Geeking fuckheads

• the Sokal Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

• SCIGen and World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and
Informatics
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

• What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities, Xah Lee
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html

• Politics and the English Language, George Orwell
http://xahlee.org/p/george_orwell_english.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

I agree with everything you say. You should check
out the following links. They will amuse and
enlight you.

Post-modernism, Schizo-Islamism and the world at large:
http://www.rhfweb.com/mctom.html

S.N.A.F.U., D.I.S.C.O. and C.R.I.S.I.S. reaching crisis
proportions:
http://koti.welho.com/mjack1/

The Dalai Llama is just another EVIL spitting mammal:
http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/sumon-262452/

It's a pussy-eat-pussy world. Tech Geek fuckheads might beg
to disagree, however:
http://www.johnnydisco.com/

Secularism, homosexuality, fringe humor finally dominating
occidental tech elite. End neigh, doctors say:
http://www.qgeeks.org

Don't mention it, at your service
Tin

[Tin Gherdanarra]

Xah Lee wrote:

recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.

I suspect that you are a computer program posing as a human
usenet correspondent.

Please answer these questions:

If Alice goes to the supermarket to buy a pint of
milk, does her head go with her? Please elaborate.

What is the difference between my disher blowing
a fuse and your boss blowing a fuse? Please elaborate.

How can you turn off the light of a candle? Why does
it work?

[Martin Christensen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> "Tin" == Tin Gherdanarra <ti*********@gmail.com> writes:

Tin> Xah Lee wrote: recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze
because it is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.

Tin> I suspect that you are a computer program posing as a human
Tin> usenet correspondent.

Tin> Please answer these questions: [...]

Will you accept a solution in Perl? He has mastery of that language,
you know. You might have better luck if you phrase your questions in
Perl, too, since he doesn't seem to understand it when people tell him
to bugger off in plain English.

Say, there's a thought...

Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Mailcrypt+GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org>

iEYEARECAAYFAkOg0CUACgkQYu1fMmOQldVP9ACfSzQBq7S1QX 0jA2/nA2JaC+BB
4ZoAoMOn5Qe9oJHGtINWKNBQsz879R6r
=bp6G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[javuchi]

Why do you have such a need of being hating everything and everybody
and expressing it so offen?
Can you live without hate?
Can you let others live without your hates?

[Luc The Perverse]

"javuchi" <ja*****@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...

Why do you have such a need of being hating everything and everybody
and expressing it so offen?
Can you live without hate?
Can you let others live without your hates?

A person can live without hate, living love and working towards bettering
humanity.

But as for people in general - I'm not so sure. I'm not sure my opinion on
hate - since I value people's opinions and diversity, hate seems unbecoming,
but then so does computer gaming ;)

Westernization sweeps accross all countries though, and it is no longer
vogue to be so self centered. This will help with the most overt types of
hatred.

--
LTP

:)

[John Bokma]

Martin Christensen <ma*********************@gmail.com> wrote:

Perl, too, since he doesn't seem to understand it when people tell him
to bugger off in plain English.

"It" buggers off if everybody ignores it. "It" posts because it knows that
its actions pisses off so many people.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

[Måns Rullgård]

Martin Christensen <ma*********************@gmail.com> writes:

>> "Tin" == Tin Gherdanarra <ti*********@gmail.com> writes:
Tin> Xah Lee wrote: recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze
because it is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.

Tin> I suspect that you are a computer program posing as a human
Tin> usenet correspondent.

Tin> Please answer these questions: [...]

Will you accept a solution in Perl? He has mastery of that language,
you know. You might have better luck if you phrase your questions in
Perl, too, since he doesn't seem to understand it when people tell him
to bugger off in plain English.

OK, lets try:

die;

--
Måns Rullgård
mr*@inprovide.com

[Keith Thompson]

"javuchi" <ja*****@gmail.com> writes:

Why do you have such a need of being hating everything and everybody
and expressing it so offen?
Can you live without hate?
Can you let others live without your hates?

Xah Lee is a well-known troll. Replying to him is a waste of time.
Please just ignore him. (A killfile is an effective way to do so.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Xah Lee]

Responsible Software Licensing

Xah Lee, 200307

Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting
property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying
money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the
invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break that
precept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become goods
in essentially infinite quantity.

All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally,
just as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email
spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a
unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is “where is
your code?�, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is
judged on how much code he has contributed to the community. Therefore,
every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their homework on the
net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of their
“contributions� to the world. These digital bads, including
irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses
until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST
POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are
C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost
anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of
irresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the
creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The
scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus
creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath.

Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law
that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for
garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty
of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i
think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called education;
I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i spoke of, then
irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any individual's
opinion.

The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that
irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with
responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be
liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's
software license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the
software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any
damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is this,
that ferments all sorts of sloppitudes and fads and myths to rampage
and survive in the software industry. Once when software producers are
liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or transportation
or house builders are responsible for the things they build, then
injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing Patterns,
eXtreme Programing, “Universal� Modeling Language...) will
automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's
stipulation.

In our already established infrastructure of software and industry
practices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can not
immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability
to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And this,
comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of awareness
among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers include
single individual to software houses, and consumers include not just
mom & pop but from IT corps to military.)

Please spread this idea.
--------------------------------
This post is archived at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...e_license.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

[robic0]

On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote:

Responsible Software Licensing

Xah Lee, 200307

Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting Soft, like your headproperty, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying it costs to dup, dupmoney. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the wrong, you can dup your bullshit evrywhere for freeinvention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break that you don't know what a computer isprecept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become goods i bid a gigabuck for that gigabytein essentially infinite quantity. in a for() loop maybe
All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally, get a calculator, bad is negative and subtracts, not multiplyjust as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email virus and email or virus in email?spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a "software bads" is like asian bads, dumber than dog shitunix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is “where is whats on the morons mind anyway Zah?your code?”, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is when is mentality signified, do a cat scan do any good?judged on how much code he has contributed to the community. Therefore, per line or content? if the dude is dumb does his software get demotedevery fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their homework on the right, the 9 inch dicked moron with the genious iq, and very tall..net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of their free... suck my 9 inch dick, and quite proud“contributions” to the world. These digital bads, including well, a big dick is a gods gift to women (or did u mean digitial dick)irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses every program i ever met was irresponsible and never wore condoms
(i never fucked with them so "i" don't know)until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST yup, down south we call them the "John Henry", definetly the standardPOPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are nah, superior "dick size" doesen't mean mindC, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost oh, u name dropper your so intelligentanything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of a "virus" is a physical ailment, not a mind doodooirresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the i never knew a responsible software, can u name one? they don't
talk to me, maybe cause i just curse them out...... hahahaaaaaaaaaaacreation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The i think you mean monkey jakkingoff, which usually leads to bad
thinking, i mean really man step away from the gun and put your hands
in the air...scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus you mean surgically, i never saw one "put" in there. anybody seen
this happen?creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath. omg, bring the jews into into it.....
Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law so shit flows downhill eh...
that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for keep the software bads to yourself (whatever that is)garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty nothin wrong with garbage, its a 3 billion dolla industryof deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i can we leave good/bad up got god, or at least anybody with a brain?think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called education; i think toilet paper helps alot better, edu is a mind fuk divorced
from reality ... like uI believe, if people are made aware of the situation i spoke of, then awareness comes when you "find" your navelirresponsible software will decrease, regardless any individual's
opinion. i never knew a "mind" software that considered itself irresponsible
The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that is the epairresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with can't we all agree "software" is not people ...responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be can't we all agree licenses were made for marriages and dog tags ..liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's your software killed my country, i want 1 trillion in damagessoftware license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the i wish marriage license didsoftware is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any software is sold. i think you should be instead, we know what u can dodamage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is this, software functions as it was programmed, not as your conception of
its use ... you should find out what "it" doess firstthat ferments all sorts of sloppitudes and fads and myths to rampage sounds like the internet and "blogs" ... lots to waste time on thereand survive in the software industry. Once when software producers are you won't live long enough to survive itliable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or transportation hey, lets start with the automotive industry first, eh.,, you want to
survive "their" software first don't ya?or house builders are responsible for the things they build, then hahaaaa, hurricane andrew destroys 50,000 homes ... when the
"wind" gets big u know ..injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing Patterns, i'm all wadded up in injuries, send the chiropractor ..eXtreme Programing, “Universal” Modeling Language...) will backticks ? errr, ahhh, jeez.......automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's
stipulation. man, you better switch to vegatables, i think your health will
deteriorate if you keep swallowing the software shit you are
dishing out ...
In our already established infrastructure of software and industry i just can't, i mean i could but, its so close to the bottom and
jeez, i'll just summ up on the bottom .practices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can not
immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability
to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And this,
comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of awareness
among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers include
single individual to software houses, and consumers include not just
mom & pop but from IT corps to military.)

Please spread this idea.
--------------------------------
This post is archived at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...e_license.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
? http://xahlee.org/

"mom & pop but from IT corps to military"

Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of
physocopic drugs! This hurt me to do this to you man
but, and I respect you but, you need some serious, serious
evaluation by a shrink.

You can redeam yourself if you post some original dynamite,
earth shaking code that a phenom such as yourself in criticism
really shows he knows what he is talking about. That will only
add credibility to your words (as disjunctive as they are).

Show us how good your really are man, post those genius words
into some God code so we can all really believe in what your
saying!

Thanks

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

robic0 wrote:

Xah Lee wrote:

<snip>

<snip>

So, at last they found one another. :(

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl

[robic0]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:55:10 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
<no*****@gunnar.cc> wrote:

robic0 wrote:

Xah Lee wrote:

<snip>

<snip>

So, at last they found one another. :(

Thanks for the coaching Gunnar !!!

[Mark Carter]

robic0 wrote:

Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of
physocopic drugs!

He could be schizophrenic.

Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene
Ray's Timecube:
http://www.timecube.com/

His outpourings are so well known that he even gets a mention in the
wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray

And once you've fully absorbed the fact that "You are educated as a
stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood",
why not play the game of the theory over at:
http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html

[Matt Garrish]

<robic0> wrote in message news:5m********************************@4ax.com...

On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote:

physocopic drugs!

Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't
even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit.

Matt

[Roedy Green]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
<ma*************@sympatico.ca> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't
even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit.

are you bawling out robico or Xah?

Attributions are necessary for personal attacks.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

Roedy Green wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
<ma*************@sympatico.ca> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't
even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit.

are you bawling out robico or Xah?

Does it really matter?

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl

[Eric J. Roode]

robic0 wrote in news:5m********************************@4ax.com:

On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote:

Responsible Software Licensing

I worship you, Xah.

--
Eric
`$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$",$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=(
$!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)......(.)/,$"),$=++;$.++;$.++;
$_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$"."$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]",$"&$~,$#,);$,++
;$,++;$^|=$";`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$"$^$~$*.>&$=`

[Lars Rune Nøstdal]

hi,
everyone thinks youreoay faggot and that youreh stupid .. now go
fugkght yourselfes

peasse out .. yo!

[Roedy Green]

On 17 Dec 2005 19:34:36 -0800, "Lars Rune Nøstdal"
<la*********@gmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

hi,
everyone thinks youreoay faggot and that youreh stupid .. now go
fugkght yourselfes

If you want to insult someone, please spell it correctly and be
accurate. Your anger has nothing to do with his sexual preference.

In the process you got me thinking about plonking you to avoid ever
helping a bigot with his Darwinian quest.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Xah Lee wrote:
<cut>
Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not
withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what
the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some
Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU.

--
mph

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

Martin P. Hellwig wrote:

Xah Lee wrote:
<cut>
Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not
withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what
the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some
Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU.

Actually most EULAs are unauthoritative in both the USA and (parts of)
the EU, because the customer usually doesn't know or sign the EULA
before he buys the software. At least that's what I heard.

The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility
could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure
I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me.

--
If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
Louis Armstrong

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
<cut>

The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility
could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure
I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me.

Not that big of a problem, in EU a user is still primary liable for his
own action unless he's deliberately been mislead without any possibility
to know that, think in terms of trojans and viruses.
So no suing over spilling hot coffee here unless the container it's
carried in is faulty

--
mph

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Lars Rune Nøstdal said something like:

hi,
everyone thinks youreoay faggot and that youreh stupid .. now go
fugkght yourselfes

peasse out .. yo!

Idiot. <PLONK>

[robic0]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:27:58 +0000, Mark Carter <[e-mail]>
wrote:

robic0 wrote:

Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of
physocopic drugs!

He could be schizophrenic.

Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene
Ray's Timecube:
http://www.timecube.com/

His outpourings are so well known that he even gets a mention in the
wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray

And once you've fully absorbed the fact that "You are educated as a
stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood",
why not play the game of the theory over at:
http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html

what would Einstien do? take a trip on a beam of light....

[robic0]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:47:29 +0100, "Martin P. Hellwig"
<mh******@xs4all.nl> wrote:

Xah Lee wrote:
<cut>
Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not
withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what
the disclaimer says.
Pretty big damned statement there boy! As about a coverall
generalization for all faults if I ever heard!
The law is the leading authority and not some
Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU.

If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to
reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the
liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the
law specifically state "repeatability" in its language?

[Steven D'Aprano]

robic0 wrote about software liabilities:

If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to
reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the
liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the
law specifically state "repeatability" in its language?

This question is hardly unique to software. All
manufacturers and suppliers have to deal with the
question of what is covered by warranty.

But it is possible to code defensively. For instance,
instead of writing directly to the user's file, you
should write to a temporary file, then when the write
is complete, you rename the temp file to the "real"
file. On some OSes that can be an atomic operation, but
even if it is not, your danger zone where a power
failure can cause the user to lose data is strongly
reduced.

As a general rule, closed source software suppliers
have a terrible reputation for responding to bug
reports quickly and in good faith. It sometimes seems
that the bigger and more successful the software
supplier is, the more likely they are to sit on bug
reports, doing nothing to fix them, and threaten to sue
if you disclose -- all the more so if it is a security
exploit.
Follow-ups to comp.lang.python please.
--
Steven.

[Roedy Green]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:42:52 -0800, robic0 wrote, quoted or indirectly
quoted someone who said :

If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to
reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the
liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the
law specifically state "repeatability" in its language?

It would expect it to work much the way a car works. If you have an
accident, that is your fault. If the fuel pump is badly designed so it
catches fire, that in the manufacturers fault.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[robic0]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:05:59 GMT, Roedy Green
<my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:42:52 -0800, robic0 wrote, quoted or indirectly
quoted someone who said :

If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to
reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the
liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the
law specifically state "repeatability" in its language?

It would expect it to work much the way a car works. If you have an
accident, that is your fault. If the fuel pump is badly designed so it
catches fire, that in the manufacturers fault.

You'ld have to prove the fuel pump caused your accident wouldn't you?
I'm reversed when it comes to engineering. I always assume defects
when buss loads of people are killed.
If software ever guards lives that isin't certified then its a
manufacturing defect. That is imbedded software though. Not the
for public consumption. I know that fly-by-wire military software
has 100 levels of precaution. Hey but its a 7 million dollar plane
and a 700 billion dollar budget. The written requirements for a
single design is a book 5 inches thick. Ever see that for
Joe bullshit software designer?

[Xah Lee]

Responsible Software Licensing & Free Software Foundation

Xah Lee, 2005-07

Dear Programers,

I have always respected the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its
community.

when i wrote the article a couple years ago on Responsible Software
Licensing, i thought it might not be welcomed by the free software
community, because in a way responsibility is implicitly a antithesis
against the free software community.

I have high respect for the Free Software Foundation, even though i do
not believe their tenet and dedication that ALL software MUST be
“Free�. Nevertheless, i respect its founder Richard Stallman and
the community on the whole. I think it is a very good group in a
capitalistic software environment, as i'm also a strong advocate and
believer in the goodness of laissez-faire system.

So, as i was thinking that a movement towards Responsible Software
Licensing may be opposed by the free software community in general, in
principle and in practice. In principle because FSF's ethics focuses on
the goodness of individuals, as opposed to some forced regulations such
as licenses and contracts. In practice because most people in the free
software camp are there because they are poor students and are totally
ignorant of sociology, economics, business, law. As a class of the
young, they are OpenSourcing fanatics for the thiefing and gratis and
noise-making parts.

In a commpercial software, where money are paid to acquire, it is
reasonable to demand workability from the sold goods. However, in Free
Software, almost always it is never a commercial item (i.e. practically
it is always free of charge), therefore demanding that the software
hold some responsibility for its consumers may seem inappropriate. We
cannot stipulate warranties and insurances from gifts. (Nor can we, for
some conceived ethics, to force some behavior by law, as history shows
us that is not going to work well.)

However, i think the free software community can in fact advocate
responsible software licensing, and be a pioneer in this movement.

As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's
software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not
liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to
change this zero responsibility stance to a 100% responsibility stance.
However, we can start in small ways. Suppose, if you write a piece of
email program, although there are a myriad scenarios that it will have
problems sending email and in reality such problem happens often, but a
responsible software programer can at least GUARANTEE, that the
software WILL work to some extent of its described utility. In the
email program example, a responsible author can say “We GUARANTEE
that this software will send out emails in a normal setting. If not, we
will refund the money you have paid, or, send you $1 USD.� Although
this may seem fuzzy and silly, but it is a start. By giving a very safe
minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability
assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_.

The Free Software Foundation's GNU project has been a pioneer in many
aspects. It is a pioneer in the concept of Free Software with its GPL
license, which is the main force behind the success and ubiquity of
Linux and a massive collection of freely available software and
components. It in fact has made a major impact in society, even beyond
the realm of software industry. (for instance, the massive grass-roots
online info-encyclopedia Wikipedia.org is a indirect consequence FSF
and GPL) Free Software community also has done pioneering leads in
software technology. For example, its emacs text editor, is a
all-encompassing, self-documented, self-sustaining software, and a
quality work at that. It embodies the LISP programing language, and in
fact emacs is mainly responsible for spreading the quality concepts
that is functional programing to most industrial programers. The GNU C
Compiler (now GNU Compiler Collection), is critical in starting Linux
and a massive collection of software in the unix industry.

This is why i think Free Software Foundation can be a leader towards
responsible software licensing. There are a huge number of Free
Software followers. Many of us also publish our programs, big or small.
By starting with a very small, nominal statement in the license, we can
spread the attitude of responsible software. Gradually, this practice
can spread to commercial software, and to such a degree of competing
offers of liabilities and guarantees as we have in for example USA's
consumer products.

Please think about this. If you agree, please spread the idea.

----------
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...cense_FSF.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

[Pascal Bourguignon]

"Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> writes:

As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's
software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not
liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to
change this zero responsibility stance to a 100% responsibility stance.
However, we can start in small ways. Suppose, if you write a piece of
email program, although there are a myriad scenarios that it will have
problems sending email and in reality such problem happens often, but a
responsible software programer can at least GUARANTEE, that the
software WILL work to some extent of its described utility. In the
email program example, a responsible author can say “We GUARANTEE
that this software will send out emails in a normal setting. If not, we
will refund the money you have paid, or, send you $1 USD.� Although
this may seem fuzzy and silly, but it is a start. By giving a very safe
minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability
assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_.

You have a problem of definition of the meaning of "normal setting".

This problem is easily resolved with the source of the program: the
source of the program IS the CONTRACT. If you respect the language
(the semantics, or underlying virtual machine expected by the
program), and if you respect the pre-conditions embedded in the
program, then you get the guarantee plainly written in the program as
post-conditions. You cannot get it more explicitely than from the
sources of the program (and the specifications of its programming
language).

So wanting more than the mere sources, you are wanting to reject
programming language not formally specified, and programs provided
without the sources. We can do better on the programming language
formal specifications side, but on the program sources side, I don't
know what we can do more than GPL or BSD...
Actually, the whole point is to let the _user_ of the program to take
_responsibility_ for the program he uses, and not to cowardly
discharge his (the user's) responsability to somebody else.
When you compute the tip to add to your invoice at the restaurant, you
don't ask the inventor of the multiplication algorithm or your
teachers to take any responsibility for your wrong or right
application of the operation. Let the users be responsible!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we. -- Georges W. Bush

[Xah Lee]

sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...bfe2330aa9.asp

so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.

What the fuck is going on?

And, good url before the change are now broken (giving HTTP error 404).
Many of the newfangled buttons such as "Copy Code" doesn't goddamn work
in Safari, FireFox, iCab, Mac IE.

And, in any of these browsers, the code examples becomes single
congested block without any line breaks. e.g.

«Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI; function ACirclesArea () { return
this.pi * this.r * this.r; // The formula for the area of a circle is
r<SUP>2</SUP>. } Circle.prototype.area = ACirclesArea; // The function
that calculates the area of a circle is now a method of the Circle
Prototype object. var a = ACircle.area(); // This is how you would
invoke the area function on a Circle object.»

WHAT THE FUCK is going on?

Answer: Motherfucking incompetence has come alive.

-------------
For a collection of essays on OpenSource documentation problems, see
bottom of:
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/