Agree 100% with Stephen comments. For the amount of money and resources Microsoft must put into MSDN it is crazy that you get better, more useable results using a search engine written by their competitor, which often points to other sites like StackOverflow or ExpertsExchange rather than MSDN.
MSDN has the potential to be the absolute BEST developer resource out there if they would only target the editorial effort more appropriately. On 24 March 2011 09:38, Trevor Andrew <tand...@tassoc.com.au> wrote: > David, > > > > I think that Stephen’s original rant was not that this was one example of a > page documentation needing improvement, but that the entire style of the > documentation is so minimal as to be close to useless. > > > > Unless I’m getting to the wrong bits, very little of the documentation I > reach initially on MSDN is of any more use than confirming syntactic > correctness and the most minimal explanation of the usage variation. And as > Stephen pointed out, sometimes almost laughably obvious explanations of > usage at that. > > > > My recollections of earlier versions were that they contained much more > descriptive information, examples, guidance on the use of methods and the > like. As stated below, it starts to look like Google gives broader > information than MSDN does. > > > > Cheers, > > Trevor** > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *David Kean > *Sent:* Thursday, 24 March 2011 2:17 AM > *To:* djones...@gmail.com; ozDotNet > > *Subject:* RE: Raising property changed events > > > > If you come across pages where you think the docs need improvement, please > use the Rating box in the top right. Given that there’s something like > 200,000+ pages on MSDN, the UE (doc guys) combine that with page views to > focus on low rated, high viewed pages first. > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *djones...@gmail.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:54 AM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: Raising property changed events > > > > Imo. This has been the problem with msdn since the inception of .net. > > The last usable msdn was '98. Where you could find examples on all methods > with related BUG: documents linked. > > The xml autodoc and java suffer from the same problem, the developers are > there to write code and not provide examples. > > I haven't pressed F1 in visual studio since early 2001. It's a waste of > time installing the docs as google will give you better and more concise > information in half the time. > > .02c > > Davy > > "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." I feel > much the same way about xml > ------------------------------ > > *From: *Stephen Price <step...@littlevoices.com> > > *Sender: *ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com > > *Date: *Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:48:10 +0800 > > *To: *ozDotNet<ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> > > *ReplyTo: *ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> > > *Subject: *Re: Raising property changed events > > > > I was going to use this an opportunity to vent about the msdn documentation > and then discovered that the page on this particular method is better than > what I usually get on msdn docs. > > > > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.reflection.assembly.getexecutingassembly.aspx > > > > Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly Method > > > > Gets the assembly that contains the code that is currently executing. > > > > <rant> > > so does anyone else get frustrated with this kind of documentation? It's > like finding comments in your code that say "Gets the value from the > property". yeah, I can see that from the code. Tell me something about why, > or how to use it? 95% of the msdn doc pages have no examples. Typically, > this particular one DOES but I'm sure thats because I wanted to rant about > it and murphy's law was invoked. Most don't. Some explanations on what > things actually do or why. Some examples. Please. We're guessing here and > don't always have time or skills to crack open the dll with decompiler of > the month and figure it out for ourselves. > > More examples please. Free standing, spelt out, working examples. Pretend > we want to know how to use the methods. Give us an instruction manual. > Please!! > > You'd make some happy people if you showed us how to use the framework. > Throw some unit tests in there or something. > > </rant> > > thanks, > > Stephen > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:06 PM, David Kean <david.k...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > Hmm, I'll check internally, but I'd be surprised if we give that guarantee. > We're free to change our inlining policy at any time, in fact, we did just > that in 3.5 SP1 x64 which broke a lot of customers who were relying on > Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly() without explicitly turning off inlining for > the method. > > Whether you can repro something now, is not a good indication of whether > we'll continue to support in a future service pack or version - always check > the docs. However, in saying that, the docs don't really make it clear that > this might not work correctly in certain situations. In which case, if we > don't give the above guarantee I'll make sure they call it out. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Mark Hurd > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:36 PM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: Raising property changed events > > On 23 March 2011 15:00, Mark Hurd <markeh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I believe it was in this mailing list that we previously confirmed > > using GetCurrentMethod, even when included in convoluted ways, > > guarantees the method will not be inlined. > > Gmail says GetCurrentMethod has /not/ been mentioned before on this mailing > list since I've been part of it, so I'm remembering that wrong. > > > Can you show an example where GetCurrentMethod does not return the > > expected method? > > This request still stands however. > -- > Regards, > Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.)(Hons.) > > >
