Fwd: [Contributors] Microsoft Windows Is Offically Broken

[Guy Fraser]

On Thu, 2005-29-09 at 17:03 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> akonstam at trinity.edu wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:57:03PM +0930, Tim wrote:
> > 
> >>On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 14:39 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> >>
> >>>Also a GUI tends to be a moving target, thereby making
> >>>what documentation there is out of date.
> >>
> >>A good GUI shouldn't need documentation, though; it should explain
> >>itself intuitively, and provide some hints for the more difficult bits.
> > 
> > I have an ex-student who made a claim like this recently. His company
> > produces a product that needs no documentation. It is "intuitively
> > obvious" he says.
> > Balderdash. I am still waiting for the program that needs no
> > documentation. I think I will die first. Linux Journal put me on to
> 
> My code doesn't need documentation... It's self-documenting. See
> how obvious it is? And NO COMMENTS!
> 
> :-)
> 
> We've all heard that line before in a dozen different ways.
> 
> [snip]
> 
Yes, and any of us who have had the misfortune of fixing 
or modifying such code, know just how wrong they are.

<deleted>
How to write legible code with comments and meaningful errors.
</deleted>