Re: Emacs documentation. Was My emacs was upgraded and I am a novice again

[David Kastrup]

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes:

> On 23/09/2007, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>> If I break my arm it is also more flexible.  The question is what
>> tanglible, user-visible benefit you expect to be coming from the
>> purported added flexibility.
>
> Forget it David. Wouldn't want to upset you.

If you don't upset anybody by explaining user-visible benefits, you
won't get into a position to upset the current way of doing things.

>> You are proposing to have a lot of work done
>
> No, I was offering to do a lot of work.

Sure, and that is appreciated.  But it would be unrealistic to expect
that you will do all of the work to convert all of GNU to a new
document format and maintain all of that documentation in all
eternity.  So without a favorable cost/benefit estimate, you can't
expect people to jump on your boat.

And if you are fully prepared to do _all_ of the work, go ahead.
Nobody is keeping you from it.  You'll still need to convince people
in the end that they are better off using your work than what they had
previously.

>> >> I guess too many developpers actually use Texinfo to document
>> >> their code, and both users and developpers seem to be happy with
>> >> that.
>> >
>> > You may be right. I think it is worth challenging though,
>> > otherwise we'll never progress?
>>
>> Progress without aim is just activism.  You need to balance benefits
>> and efforts.
>
> Against stagnation.

Fine warcry, but we are talking about Emacs here, software close to
its 30th birthday, and GNU, inspired by ancient UNIX systems.  Of
course, you can just go ahead: "code talks" is a mantra not unheard of
in these circles.  Being able to demonstrate a working implementation
always improves your chances of acceptance.  But not to 100%.  Whether
or not you want to explain them, there need to be tangible benefits.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum