On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 08:47:00PM EST, A.J.Mechelynck wrote: > cga2000 wrote: > [...] > >I find the exercise useful since as, I believe, A. Einstein once > >remarked .. if you can't explain it .. you don't fully understand it .. > >or something to that effect. > > Some French author of the 17th century I think (Boileau?): > > Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement > Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément. > > (What one conceives well is expressed clearly > And the words to describe it come to mind easily.) I don't 100% agree.
Maybe because you leave out the context. This is indeed from Nicolas Boileau's l'Art Poétique .. a treatise on writing .. recommendations relative to style .. etc. As far as I can remember this was mainly in reaction to the appalling state of French "official" poetry of the time .. you know, all that artificial stuff with shepherds and shepherdesses .. Another one he wrote could probably be added to netiquette manuals without changing a comma: Avant donc que d'écrire, apprenez à penser. (Before writing, one must learn to think) .. (rough translation) But I think I know where you're coming from .. and it reminds me of another one of my favorites: For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and wrong. H.L. Mencken. > [...] > >I often think that the intrinsic quality of vim@vim.org adds > >considerable value to an already great piece of software. What I > >particularly like about it is that you can come up with a naive or even > >dumb question and within the hour, somebody will come up with the answer > >to the question you should have asked. > > Yes, I agree. Sometimes before your mailer comes around to polling the > server again, three or four people will have answered with so many > different -- and valid -- solutions to your problem. > > -- Pierre Larousse wrote: /A dictionary without examples is a skeleton./ > I'll add: The best-coded program won't spread well if it hasn't got good > documentation. (Let me rephrase this, since after all there exist some > badly-coded and badly-documented programs which do spread well because huge > marketing $$$ are spent on them. So let'say: ) Good documentation is a plus > for any program; a well-coded and well-documented program will need hardly > any marketing effort. The Vim code isn't bad, and it benefits from the > Bazaar model, but the Vim documentation is _outstanding_. /Everything/ is > in there. It's so complete that at times, it poses sort of a > needle-and-haystack problem, I tend to consider that vim@vim.org is actually a priceless extension to the vim documentation system. > but even that has been addressed with features > like helptag completion, help hyperlinks, and the :helpgrep command. Then > these mailing lists carry that a step further: if RTFM doesn't get you what > you want, come here and you'll find "real people" who will show you where > to look and what to do. I have had this feeling before that learning vim is a bit like mastering craft and consider myself a lucky apprentice. > >I am subscribed to about 25 mailing lists at this point and the only one > >that comes close is the TeX/LaTeX list. Interestingly enough there is > >very little "trolling" on vim@vim.org .. as if the quality of the posts > >acted as a deterrent. > > > >Thanks > >cga > > The patience and good humor of the old-timers here (first and foremost > Bram) certainly acts by virtue of example. Another possibility (but I'm on > less firmer ground there): maybe these lists are too confidential to > attract a lot of trolls? And possibly a consensus that if anyone barges in with outrageous nonsense he will be met with complete silence. He will feel like the idiot that he is and go sell his wares elsewhere. Thanks, cga
