On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Zero3<zero3 at zerosplayground.dk> wrote: > Evan Daniel skrev: >> Having not written much actual Freenet code before, I'm learning a lot >> about how Freenet works in the process -- which is harder than it has >> any reason to be. ?Why? ?NOTHING IS DOCUMENTED. > > [snip] > >> If this were an isolated incident, it wouldn't matter much. ?It isn't. >> It is the norm for Freenet. ?For a platform whose primary impediment >> to wider adoption (IMO, of course) is a lack of things to do with it, >> rather than a lack of underlying functionality, this is a problem. ?I >> haven't tracked it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I've spent nearly >> as much time trying to figure out how the plugin API works (or even >> which classes it consists of) as I have actually writing code. > > [snip] > >> At this point, I think I have a much better understanding of why >> Freenet has so little software that makes use of it, despite the fact >> that Freenet itself seems to work fairly well. > > I completely agree. I've been pulling my hair over similar issues before > as well. The closest thing to documentation was for me the Wiki and/or > simply askin toad about what I needed to know.
That has been my strategy as well. I tend to think it's a bad use of toad's time to answer questions that could be answered by documentation, and a bad use of my time to wait until he's available to get answers. > > I guess the fact that the Freenet core is ever-changing has a lot to do > with it. If the documentation were merely out of date, I would agree. However, it's not out of date, it's nonexistant. Also, the main APIs have been stable enough for long enough that I don't think this is an excuse any longer, especially for parts like plugins and FCP that are expected to be used by outside programs (as opposed to FNP, etc). Evan Daniel
