[osg-users] ANN: Reference Manual for v2.2 now available

[Richard S. Wright Jr.]

Apparently I ran on and on and tried to be too clever and should have  
just stayed quiet. I did not intend to further the debate, but perhaps  
capture the nature of open source and community driven projects for  
those who can't understand why OSG isn't as easy to pick up as say Qt.  
This nature is not suitable for all developers, but it is still quite  
useful to many (myself included).  Sometimes I enjoy playing devils  
advocate a little too much ;-)

I do not think that OSG is worthless without documentation (to me). I  
also greatly appreciate the efforts of everyone on this list  
(including you if I'm not mistaken) to help the newbies, and create  
the tutorials and sample code for OSG.

I do think the level of documentation is sufficient for my needs, but  
could always be better (I really got quite the head start via Paul's  
great book). Mailing lists such as these can be more valuable than  
many books. In fact in a previous posting weeks ago, I stated that I  
found OSG to be quite refreshing in that it has more tutorials and  
documentation than most other open source projects I have encountered.  
I haven't changed my mind. But I am an experienced developer who  
understands (and was trying to convey in a long winded way) that  
mastery of a new technology is a significant investment.

I was simply (oh, no I suppose there was nothing simple about it)  
saying, this other gentleman has a valid point... but shouldn't whine  
about it.

I think he probably expected the reference guide to be something like  
the MSDN reference, or Qt's Assistant. You can't go to Amazon and find  
several books on OSG, etc. Many people really "need" this level of  
support to pick up a new API.

> no one in the "not enough docs" camp
> steps up to change that.


I have written one or two sample programs and tutorials in my time...  
when I graduate from newbie, I promise to contribute something back  
myself.

> So can we just agree to disagree?


I'm not sure what we disagree on. I see both sides of the argument is  
all. I haven't been following the thread, and probably should not have  
just jumped in at the end.

I think we can both agree that I haven't gotten enough sleep lately  
and have probably OD'd on caffeine.

I promise to shut up for a while ;-)

Richard


On Dec 18, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote:

> Hello Richard,
>
>> Warning... I'm in rare form tonight ;-)
>
> Yeah... Well... I don't really see your point in continuing this
> debate. No one willingly says "Hey, you know what? We don't need
> documentation. You want to pay for it? Why bother!". I think this
> subject is on the top-5 (maybe even top-2) list of "beating a dead
> horse" subjects on this mailing list.
>
> On the one hand, you're saying the OSG is worthless without
> documentation. We all agree with the principle, but the fact of the
> matter is that a large number of people find what little documentation
> exists is sufficient to get started, and once you're rolling,
> everything comes easily. So either your argument is too "white or
> black", or OSG is a counter-example to your argument. I suspect a
> little of both.
>
> See the documentation and tutorials sections on the wiki for great
> documentation that is not only free, but was also contributed freely
> by members of the community. See Paul Martz's books for great
> documentation in the more traditional sense. See the examples in the
> source code for short, to-the-point code samples.
>
> Of course, there can never be enough (and even less too much)
> documentation. But the debate in itself does not help, since we all
> have our take on the subject and no one in the "not enough docs" camp
> steps up to change that. So can we just agree to disagree?
>
> J-S
> -- 
> ______________________________________________________
> Jean-Sebastien Guay     jean-sebastien.guay at polymtl.ca
>                         http://whitestar02.webhop.org/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osg-users mailing list
> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org