[REBOL] Re: Reference docs for View
From: geza67:freestart:hu at: 8-Jul-2001 22:31
> Is it my imagination (or lack of) or are there no > View docs for
> the raw "compositing system" > upon which VID is built?
It is a great problem for me, too. I am just wondering that none of
the active List Participants (some of them are PURCHASERS of the
Product, so they literally PAID for it and use it professionally thus
they MAY (?!) wish a professional API documentation for their money,
as well! ) has raised his voice that RT releases a wonderful new
programming "Thing" and the first _official_ /View, rudimentary (still
explaining on really hot topics: just wait, more to come ... ;-) But
WHEN ??? ) Howtos appear roughly after 1 YEAR (counting from the beta
release) on the RT home site. Nevertheless, the usable (and very
correct and comprehensive) CORE.PDF appeared roughly 1.5-2 years later
than the significant Core 2.x releases came ... Till that time the
rebolian/rebolish "voodoo" has benn spread only mouth by mouth from
the great guys of this list. Now /View has it's similar
no-reference-level documentation orphanage.
I know that coding is much more fun than documenting, but look at
Lin*x or look at Micros*ft/S*n/B*rland/L*tus etc. etc., just to
mention two arbitrarily different developmental approaches - they all
know that there ARE customers who don't have the spare time to delve
into the /SYSTEM object full source listings to get things done. Well,
some of their API documentations (counting some hundreds of pages ...)
were out WAY earlier than the real product.
I am not a professional programmer (I am just an M.D., interested in
such technical things), searching for MY Holy Grail of programming
languages. I suppose, I found it in REBOL but it is really annoying
that I should ask several shameless questions via this List which
would have been answered by a proper View Programming Guide. Some tips
and short topics can be covered in a mail list, but View design
philosophy, answering not only the HOWs but the WHYs are ment to be in
reference materials, I guess.