The Python advocates who claim that Python is well-documented and take
exception to when someone say it isn't. Their idea of "it's
well-documented" seems to be "if there's parts that you think are
poorly documented, feel free to document it". What kind of nonsense
is that?
I'm not sure which planet you come from but open source is open source for a reason. IMO gratitude is the only thing which can be given back to the contributors of open source projects not "what you've given me for FREE is not good enough, go back and do a better job (and by the way I don't really know how you can do a better job) so I can make money off your free time". I don't even expect this much from software I pay for.
Being a python user (not contributer) for the past few years I personally think the Python docs are GREAT. If it's not in the reference, it can be found in the source (again thank god for open source), if it's not in the source you have google, then google groups then ASPN python cookbook. If you're not smart enough to do this, well learn. It'll help you become a better programmer.
Anyone who thinks Python docs suck haven't browsed javadocs lately, or MSDN.
Software advocacy, which Python has an awful lot of, involves extolling the virtues of a program as it exists in the present. Not as it could potentially exist if someone hypothetically added a bunch of work that hasn't yet been done. Python is good software, but its advocates are making claims that Python itself doesnt live up to.
You should be more accurate. Quote "Python is good software, but its
advocates are making claims that [you think it] doesnt live up to". I guess everyone is allowed to have their own opinion.
And no, I don't feel a responsibility to do the missing work, since I'm not the one making those advocacy claims.
Good on ya.
Huy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
