Xah's Edu Corner: Examples of Quality Technical Writing

[Pascal Bourguignon]

As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's
software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not
liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to
change this zero responsibility stance to a 100% responsibility stance.
However, we can start in small ways. Suppose, if you write a piece of
email program, although there are a myriad scenarios that it will have
problems sending email and in reality such problem happens often, but a
responsible software programer can at least GUARANTEE, that the
software WILL work to some extent of its described utility. In the
email program example, a responsible author can say “We GUARANTEE
that this software will send out emails in a normal setting. If not, we
will refund the money you have paid, or, send you $1 USD.†Although
this may seem fuzzy and silly, but it is a start. By giving a very safe
minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability
assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_.

You have a problem of definition of the meaning of "normal setting".

This problem is easily resolved with the source of the program: the
source of the program IS the CONTRACT. If you respect the language
(the semantics, or underlying virtual machine expected by the
program), and if you respect the pre-conditions embedded in the
program, then you get the guarantee plainly written in the program as
post-conditions. You cannot get it more explicitely than from the
sources of the program (and the specifications of its programming
language).

So wanting more than the mere sources, you are wanting to reject
programming language not formally specified, and programs provided
without the sources. We can do better on the programming language
formal specifications side, but on the program sources side, I don't
know what we can do more than GPL or BSD...


Actually, the whole point is to let the _user_ of the program to take
_responsibility_ for the program he uses, and not to cowardly
discharge his (the user's) responsability to somebody else.


When you compute the tip to add to your invoice at the restaurant, you
don't ask the inventor of the multiplication algorithm or your
teachers to take any responsibility for your wrong or right
application of the operation. Let the users be responsible!

 

[Xah Lee]

sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...html/1e9b3876-3d38-4fd8-8596-1bbfe2330aa9.asp

so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.

What the **** is going on?

And, good url before the change are now broken (giving HTTP error 404).
Many of the newfangled buttons such as "Copy Code" doesn't goddamn work
in Safari, FireFox, iCab, Mac IE.

And, in any of these browsers, the code examples becomes single
congested block without any line breaks. e.g.

«Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI; function ACirclesArea () { return
this.pi * this.r * this.r; // The formula for the area of a circle is
r<SUP>2</SUP>. } Circle.prototype.area = ACirclesArea; // The function
that calculates the area of a circle is now a method of the Circle
Prototype object. var a = ACircle.area(); // This is how you would
invoke the area function on a Circle object.»

WHAT THE **** is going on?

Answer: Motherfucking incompetence has come alive.

-------------
For a collection of essays on OpenSource documentation problems, see
bottom of:
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python.html

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[VK]

sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:

Their *JScript* documentation website - here's the keyword.

See:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp..._frm/thread/a4a1e9736dc8fa11/9f41a436cf9d8f44>

After the official breakup with IE for Mac OS:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...f55553d8da2/5dddd18b0949b792#5dddd18b0949b792>

JScript site is now only and exclusively for Internet Explorer 5.5 and
higher under Windows 98 SE and higher.

Any other visitors are out of support and interest of Microsoft - at
least in JScript domain. It is bad and rude, but it is and I'm affraid
it will be.

 

[Zif]

sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...html/1e9b3876-3d38-4fd8-8596-1bbfe2330aa9.asp

so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.

What the **** is going on?

They are still using browser sniffing to determine what CSS to send to
the browser (IE 5.2 gets 'ie4.css', Safari gets 'n6.css'. Despite
that, they deliver js files with hundreds (maybe thousands) of lines
of code to browsers that can't execute them. Why bother sniffing?


They are still using '<!-- -->' inside their style and script elements
- ya gotta wonder who would visit a page about browser scripting using
a browser that doesn't know what a script element is (and is probably
more than 10 years old).


In a file called 'whidbey/script.js' they still use document.all
without any fall back to getElementById. Isn't whidbey the code name
for Visual Studio .NET 2005? Does it use document.all exclusively?


The frame pages generate lots of errors, including really basic things
like no doctype and unclosed tags in documents that pretend to be XML.


[...]

WHAT THE **** is going on?

Answer: Motherfucking incompetence has come alive.

Yes. Their documentation for the Office XML standard runs to 1,900
pages. The documentation of their streaming media server and media
player interfaces and formats was deemed utterly useless after being
given 18 months to deliver same.

What did you expect?


[...]

 

[BR]

In a file called 'whidbey/script.js' they still use document.all
without any fall back to getElementById. Isn't whidbey the code name
for Visual Studio .NET 2005?  Does it use document.all exclusively?

I'm wondering if they meant for that documentation to be read in VS 2005?

 

[Rich Teer]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Xah Lee wrote:

His usual clap trap.


___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
/ \ feed the |
/ \ \ trolls |
/ _ \ \ ______________|
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ \ __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

. * * . * .* .
. * . .*
President, * . . /\ ( . . *
Rite Online Inc. . . / .\ . * .
.*. / * \ . .
. /* o \ .
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 * '''||''' .
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ******************

 

[Xah Lee]

«use bytes; # Larry can take Unicode and shove it up his ass
sideways.
# Perl 5.8.0 causes us to start getting incomprehensible
# errors about UTF-8 all over the place without this.»

From: the source code of WebCollage (1998)
http://www.jwz.org/webcollage/
by Jamie W. Zawinski (~1971-)

The code is 3.4 thousand lines of Perl in one single file. Rather
incomprehensible.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[Xah Lee]

What did you expect?

There are two interpretations to this Microsoft's JavaScript doc
problem:

1. They didn't do it intentionally.

2. They did it intentionally.

If (1), then it would be a fucking incompetence of inordinate order. If
(2), they would be assholes, even though they have the right to do so.

On the other hand, in terms of documentation quality, technological
excellence, responsibility in software, Microsoft in the 21st century
is the holder of human progress when compared to the motherfucking Open
Sourcers lying thru their teeth fuckheads.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/


--------------------------------------
Xah Lee wrote:

sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/scri...


so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.

What the **** is going on?

And, good url before the change are now broken (giving HTTP error 404).

Many of the newfangled buttons such as "Copy Code" doesn't goddamn work

in Safari, FireFox, iCab, Mac IE.

And, in any of these browsers, the code examples becomes single
congested block without any line breaks. e.g.

«Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI; function ACirclesArea () { return
this.pi * this.r * this.r; // The formula for the area of a circle is
r<SUP>2</SUP>. } Circle.prototype.area = ACirclesArea; // The function
that calculates the area of a circle is now a method of the Circle
Prototype object. var a = ACircle.area(); // This is how you would
invoke the area function on a Circle object.»

 

[axel]

If (1), then it would be a fucking incompetence of inordinate order. If

Have you ever thought that your cross-postings are "incompetence
of inordinate order"?

Of course not since you are a troll.

Axel

 

[Brad Baxter]

i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.

http://www.php.net/manual/en/

although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix lineage,
but if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is a
impeccability.

it has or possesses properties of:

· To the point and useful.

PHP has its roots in mundaness, like Perl and Apache. Its doc being
practicality oriented isn't a surprise, as are the docs of Perl and
Apache.

· Extreme clarity!

The doc is extremely well-written. The authors's writing skills
shows, that they can present their ideas clearly, and also that they
have put thoughts into what they wanted to say.

· Ample usage examples.

As with Perl's doc, PHP doc is not afraid to show example snippets,
yet not abuse it as if simply slapping on examples in lieu of proper
spec or discussion.

· Appropriate functions or keywords are interlinked.

This aspect is also well done in other quality docs, such as
Mathematica, Java, MS JScript, Perl's official docs.

· No abuse of jargons.

In fact, it's so well written that there's almost no jargons in its
docs, yet conveys its intentions to a tee. This aspect can also be seen
in Mathematica's doc, or Microsoft's JScript doc, for examples.

· No author masturbation. (if fact, you won't see a first-person
perspective, as is the case with most quality tech writing.)

We must truely appreciate the authors of the PHP doc. Because, PHP, as
a free shit in the unix shit culture, with extreme ties to Perl and
Apache (both of which has extremely motherfucked docs), but can wean
itself from a shit milieu and stand pure and clean to become a paragon
of technical writing.

--- original Sat Dec 31 11:44:54 2005
+++ corrected Sat Dec 31 11:56:59 2005
@@ -1,28 +1,28 @@
-i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.
+I had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.

http://www.php.net/manual/en/

-although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix
lineage,
-but if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is a
+Although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix
lineage,
+if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is an
impeccability.

-it has or possesses properties of:
+It has or possesses properties of:

- To the point and useful.

PHP has its roots in mundaness, like Perl and Apache. Its doc being
-practicality oriented isn't a surprise, as are the docs of Perl and
+practicality-oriented isn't a surprise; so are the docs of Perl and
Apache.

- Extreme clarity!

The doc is extremely well-written. The authors's writing skills
-shows, that they can present their ideas clearly, and also that they
-have put thoughts into what they wanted to say.
+show, they can present their ideas clearly, and they
+have put thought into what they wanted to say.

- Ample usage examples.

- As with Perl's doc, PHP doc is not afraid to show example snippets,
+ As with Perl's doc, PHP's doc is not afraid to show example
snippets,
yet not abuse it as if simply slapping on examples in lieu of proper
spec or discussion.

@@ -31,18 +31,18 @@
This aspect is also well done in other quality docs, such as
Mathematica, Java, MS JScript, Perl's official docs.

-- No abuse of jargons.
+- No abuse of jargon.

- In fact, it's so well written that there's almost no jargons in its
-docs, yet conveys its intentions to a tee. This aspect can also be
seen
+ In fact, it's so well written that there's almost no jargon in its
+docs, yet it conveys its intentions to a tee. This aspect can also be
seen
in Mathematica's doc, or Microsoft's JScript doc, for examples.

-- No author masturbation. (if fact, you won't see a first-person
+- No author masturbation. (In fact, you won't see a first-person
perspective, as is the case with most quality tech writing.)

-We must truely appreciate the authors of the PHP doc. Because, PHP, as
+We must truly appreciate the authors of the PHP doc. Because PHP, as
a free shit in the unix shit culture, with extreme ties to Perl and
-Apache (both of which has extremely motherfucked docs), but can wean
+Apache (both of which have extremely motherfucked docs), can wean
itself from a shit milieu and stand pure and clean to become a paragon
of technical writing.

HTH

 

[alex.gman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dattebayo.jpg

 

[Xah Lee]

The Bug-Reporting Attitude

Xah Lee, 2005-02, 2006-01

People,

There is a common behavior among people in software geek forums, that
whenever a software is crashing or behaving badly, they respond by
“go file a bug report†as if it is the duty of software consumers.

When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in
connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are
thru their irresponsible licensing, the thing one should not do is to
fawn up to their ass as in filing a bug report, and that is also the
least effective in correcting the software.

The common attitude of bug-reporting is one reason that contributed to
the tremendous egregious irresponsible fuckups in computer software
industry that each of us have to endure daily all the time. (e.g.
software A clashed, software B can't do this, C can't do that, D i
don't know how to use, E download location broken, F i need to join
discussion group to find a work-around, G is all pretty and
dysfunctional... )

When a software is ostensibly incorrect and when the organization
behind it is irresponsible with its licensing, the most effective and
moral attitude is to do legal harm to the legal entity. This one can do
by filing a law suit or spreading the fact. Filing a law suit is
appropriate in severe and serious cases, and provided you have such
devotion to the cause. For most cases, we should just spread the fact.
When the organization sees facts flying about its incompetence or
irresponsibility, it will immediately mend the problem source, or cease
to exist.

Another harm sprang from the fucking bug-reporting attitude rampant
among IT morons is the multiplication of pop-ups that bug users for
bug-reporting, complete with their privacy legalese infomercial
intrusion.

2006-01 Addendum

• In early 2005 or late 2004, OS X's Safari browser contains a button
on the top right that is use to send bugs to Apple. As late as 2006-01
in Safari 2.0.2, one can turn on the send bug button by right clicking
on the toolbar. (screenshot).

• In about 2004-2005, every Mac OS X's tool bar has a Quality
Feedback button for user to report problems and suggestions to Apple.
Mac fanatics are fanatical about reporting bugs back to Apple.

• In 2004-2005, the Adium multi-chat client for OS X will popup a
dialogue box whenever it crashes, and ask the user whether if he wishes
to report the bug.

• In 2005, Microsoft Windows XP will popup a dialogue box when a
program crashed, and will ask the user about whether she want to report
it back to Microsoft.

• In 2005, the Open Sourced Netscape/FireFox browser will auto-start
a separate bug-report program whenever it crashed, and will bother the
user about whether to report the bug.

Much of these harassment come with technical notices and or privacy
legalese, that assures the user nothing personal is being sent or
collected. Some will also contain an option to turn this
user-contribution auto-solicitation off for good, but not all.

These bug-reporting phenomenon didn't start until early 21st century.
Such direct user intrusion was unknown or unthinkable in 1990s. Part of
the reason of their rise can be attributed by a few factors: (1) the
mainstreaming of the internet. (2) The collectivism and fanaticism
ushered by Open Sourcers. (3) The fanaticism ushered by Mac fanatics.
Group (2) and (3) are largely incompatible, but each lives in their
utopian vision.

----------------
This post is archived at:
http://www.xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/bug_report_attitude.html

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[robic0]

The Bug-Reporting Attitude

Xah Lee, 2005-02, 2006-01

People,

There is a common behavior among people in software geek forums, that
whenever a software is crashing or behaving badly, they respond by
“go file a bug report” as if it is the duty of software consumers.

"software" found 3 x

When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in
connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are
thru their irresponsible licensing, the thing one should not do is to
fawn up to their ass as in filing a bug report, and that is also the
least effective in correcting the software.

"software" 3x ... "companies" 1 x

The common attitude of bug-reporting is one reason that contributed to
the tremendous egregious irresponsible fuckups in computer software
industry that each of us have to endure daily all the time. (e.g.
software A clashed, software B can't do this, C can't do that, D i
don't know how to use, E download location broken, F i need to join
discussion group to find a work-around, G is all pretty and
dysfunctional... )

"software industry" found 1 x

When a software is ostensibly incorrect and when the organization
behind it is irresponsible with its licensing, the most effective and
moral attitude is to do legal harm to the legal entity. This one can do
by filing a law suit or spreading the fact. Filing a law suit is
appropriate in severe and serious cases, and provided you have such
devotion to the cause. For most cases, we should just spread the fact.
When the organization sees facts flying about its incompetence or
irresponsibility, it will immediately mend the problem source, or cease
to exist.
"software"(1x)..."organization"(2x)

Another harm sprang from the fucking bug-reporting attitude rampant
among IT morons is the multiplication of pop-ups that bug users for
bug-reporting, complete with their privacy legalese infomercial
intrusion.

2006-01 Addendum

Since I work for a software industry, company, organization,
I thought I'd offer my 2 cents here.

The software industry/company/organization are run by
snake-oil salesmen/marketing who discard the programmers as fast
as they do bug reports. Given that, who do you think "cuts" out
the problem parameters for the programmer? Think its a master
problem solver programmer/manager who is not influenced by
marketing? Got a bright programmer who looks at the condition
then at the parameters for the fixes to implement who see's the
fallicy of the fix parameters. Why yes, yes you do. Well why
doesen't he jump up and down in the organization then?

Because his job hangs by a thread, with seasonal layoffs and
outsoursing, lessening pay/benifits, contract status, etc...
Contrary to popular belief the fixer has to research his part
of the code, and is forced to know more than what he is being
tasked to do. The falicy is that he has control of it, he see's
the big picture fopa's but can't do a thing about it.

So you see, when you say "software" so many times, you imply the
programmer is at fault. For simple bugs that may be true, however
in the face of induced snake oil marketing induced CONCEPTUAL ERRORS,
well brother, what have I got to do to just get my next paycheck?

Imagine that software designed by snake-oil salesmaen/marketing,
comercial ad agencies, conceptual designers without proof-of-concept.

In todays world, the word "software" is a mis-nomer. Its not
software anymore, its a concept of some dude on ACID !!!

Any questions?

 

[Hax Eel]

The Bug-Trolling Attitude

Hax Eel, 2006-01-02

People,

There is a common behavior among people in software geek forums, that
whenever a software is crashing or behaving badly, they respond by writing
stupid essays about it and cross-post it to multiple newsgroups as if it
is the duty of Usenet readers to suffer through their egocentric rantings.

When a troll is full of shit, as is likely in connection to egregious
irresponsibility as most trolls are unable to spell "thru", the thing one
should not do is to fawn up to their ass by responding to their post and
treating their verbal diarrhoea with dignity, as that is the least
effective method in correcting the problem.

The common attitude of responding to trolls is one reason that contributed
to the tremendous egregious irresponsible egotistical arrogant
know-nothing adjective-over-users on Usenet that each of us have to endure
daily all the time.

When a poster is ostensibly incorrect and full of hot-hair about
licensing, the most effective and moral attitude is to do legal harm to
the poster. If you live in lawyer-happy countries like the USA, you
can do this by filing a law suit for mental anguish and emotional distress
against the poster. If you live in the United Kingdom, you can apply for
an Anti-Social Behaviour Order or ASBO. In severe and serious cases, it
may be appropriate to pop a cap in the fucker's arse.

----------------

This post is archived at:
http://www.trolling-for-you.org/FullOfCrap_dir/crap/bug_trolling_attitude.html

Hax
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://trolling-for-you.org/

 

[Roedy Green]

When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in
connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are
thru their irresponsible licensing, the thing one should not do is to
fawn up to their ass as in filing a bug report, and that is also the
least effective in correcting the software.

I think a lot of us have a problem with you pontificating in such a
grandiose style when you have not first proved you know what you are
talking about with participation in the discussions of day to day
coding problems.

 

[Coby Beck]

The Bug-Trolling Attitude

Hax Eel, 2006-01-02

People,

There is a common behavior among people in software geek forums, that
whenever a software is crashing or behaving badly, they respond by writing
stupid essays about it and cross-post it to multiple newsgroups as if it
is the duty of Usenet readers to suffer through their egocentric rantings. ....


This post is archived at:
http://www.trolling-for-you.org/FullOfCrap_dir/crap/bug_trolling_attitude.html

That link didn't work for me.

{8-o

 

[Tim Roberts]

I think a lot of us have a problem with you pontificating in such a
grandiose style when you have not first proved you know what you are
talking about with participation in the discussions of day to day
coding problems.

Xah Lee (1) is a write-only poster who pontificates but never reads
replies, and (2) cares not a whit that the rest of us believe him to be a
moron.

In a sense, I envy him. I hold a number of strong and somewhat
controversial opinions that I hesitate to expose in public, for fear of
being laughed at and labeled as a nutcase. Xah Lee has absolutely no such
fears.

 

[Xah Lee]

IT Industry Predicament

Xah Lee, 200207

As most of you agree, there are incredible wrongs in software industry.
Programs crash, injurious tools, uninformed programers, and decrepit
education system. Over the years of my computing industry experience
since 1995, i have recently gradually come to realize the cause and
plan a solution. I wanted to write a cohesive account of my thoughts
one day. Here's a quick beginning:

• Most agree that computing industry has lots of problems, including:
extremely poor software quality, poorly qualified programers, and a
strayed education system. One final metric is the quality of today's
software, and consumer's experience with computers.

• In pretty much free market system of America, we can say that
software quality (or software related things) being the way it is is
out of natural selection. In other words: “driven by economyâ€, or,
a result that evolved naturally from competition.

• This naturally evolved result, does not mean it is the “bestâ€
outcome. Simply put: “outcome†does not mean “desired outcomeâ€.
Think of it this way: the solutions from genetic algorithms arn't best
solutions, but best outcome from a given set of criterions and gene
pool and the coupling environment.

• We can see now that the state of software or industry is not
determined by idiotic and simplistic expectations such as quality of
design or intelligence of programers. How things come to be in society
do not have simplistic explanations, but sensible understanding is not
impossible. In a commercial software world, software's popularity or
trend is determined by the choices consumer makes. How consumer ends up
purchasing a software has a myriad of factors among them awareness, but
most responsible being the price/performance ratio, or just price.
Also, the majority of consumers are morons with respect to evaluating
software for their own good. This is why, the inept and FREE unixes and
Perl and C are everywhere. It is also why, the fucking incompetent
unixes though $free$ but has little place to stand in comparison to a
charging Microsoft when performance also enters the equation. This also
explains, the exorbitantly priced fashion-statement Apple
software/hardware combo are no more populous than those affluent. (not
because some fucking fashionable chant about how
good-things-are-always-unpopular fucking **** chant loved by vain
above-it geeks.)

• The reason fucking languages like C and family mask technically
superior ones like lisp are in large part due to the unix phenomenon as
explained above. C + Unix, incompetence + irresponsibility
bootstrapping each other $freely$. The unix things teach programers to
unthink. With their greed-based speed-based freely-distributable
popularity-based iconoclastic irresponsibilities spreading like
corruption do.

Solution: Understand and spread the word that writing bug-free software
are not difficult at all, and quality software can be as intuitive as
extra hands. When good programers understand this and catch on, good
software with responsible licenses will emerge. Eventually software
vendors will compete for more responsible software, one's that offer to
be penalized for every bug or crash or misfeature. In turn, this will
eliminate all fucking fashions and idiots in the software industry such
as the Design Patterns and eXtreme Programing or the TIMTOWTDI Perl
**** or the OOP fad or the fucking “Universal Modeling Languageâ€
****.

Do you want software/industry to improve? Everyone want to be
millionaire when asked, but when they have to pay to be a millionaire,
they reconsider.

--
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/it_predicament.html

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

• The reason fucking languages like C and family mask technically

Contrary to popular opinion, languages don't multiply. Certainly they
don't have sex. Most (human) languages merely have something called
gender, and words don't interact. C has a bastard child called C++,
true, but that was basically created by genetic manipulation of the
original C, and indeed it's said to be 100% backward-compatible to C.

Solution: Understand and spread the word that writing bug-free software
are not difficult at all, and quality software can be as intuitive as
extra hands. When good programers understand this and catch on, good

Yes, please go ahead. Oh, you said "good programmers." Never mind.

I know, don't feed the troll. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Eli Gottlieb]

IT Industry Predicament

Xah Lee, 200207

As most of you agree, there are incredible wrongs in software industry.
Programs crash, injurious tools, uninformed programers, and decrepit
education system. Over the years of my computing industry experience
since 1995, i have recently gradually come to realize the cause and
plan a solution. I wanted to write a cohesive account of my thoughts
one day. Here's a quick beginning:

• Most agree that computing industry has lots of problems, including:
extremely poor software quality, poorly qualified programers, and a
strayed education system. One final metric is the quality of today's
software, and consumer's experience with computers.

• In pretty much free market system of America, we can say that
software quality (or software related things) being the way it is is
out of natural selection. In other words: “driven by economyâ€, or,
a result that evolved naturally from competition.

• This naturally evolved result, does not mean it is the “bestâ€
outcome. Simply put: “outcome†does not mean “desired outcomeâ€.
Think of it this way: the solutions from genetic algorithms arn't best
solutions, but best outcome from a given set of criterions and gene
pool and the coupling environment.

Doing good...

• We can see now that the state of software or industry is not
determined by idiotic and simplistic expectations such as quality of
design or intelligence of programers. How things come to be in society
do not have simplistic explanations, but sensible understanding is not
impossible. In a commercial software world, software's popularity or
trend is determined by the choices consumer makes. How consumer ends up
purchasing a software has a myriad of factors among them awareness, but
most responsible being the price/performance ratio, or just price.
Also, the majority of consumers are morons with respect to evaluating
software for their own good. This is why, the inept and FREE unixes and
Perl and C are everywhere. It is also why, the fucking incompetent
unixes though $free$ but has little place to stand in comparison to a
charging Microsoft when performance also enters the equation. This also
explains, the exorbitantly priced fashion-statement Apple
software/hardware combo are no more populous than those affluent. (not
because some fucking fashionable chant about how
good-things-are-always-unpopular fucking **** chant loved by vain
above-it geeks.)

I'm sorry, but the $free$ Unixen are actually better operating systems
than Windoze. I didn't switch because I thought it was cool or because
it was free, I switched because Linux crashed less, let me build it how
I wanted, and had loads of free software that actually worked. The
Unixen are the best thing out there right now, but a few of us are
working on (what we hope is) something better instead of just
complaining (kvetching) about it.

I agree about Apple, however.

• The reason fucking languages like C and family mask technically
superior ones like lisp are in large part due to the unix phenomenon as
explained above. C + Unix, incompetence + irresponsibility
bootstrapping each other $freely$. The unix things teach programers to
unthink. With their greed-based speed-based freely-distributable
popularity-based iconoclastic irresponsibilities spreading like
corruption do.

Unix does teach programmers to think in C, that I must admit. I hope
that an operating system based on a better language (I know two which
will prominantly feature Lisp as a systems-programming language, Tin
Gherdanarra's Lisp OS and my Glider) will become popular enough to solve
that issue.

Solution: Understand and spread the word that writing bug-free software
are not difficult at all, and quality software can be as intuitive as
extra hands. When good programers understand this and catch on, good
software with responsible licenses will emerge. Eventually software
vendors will compete for more responsible software, one's that offer to
be penalized for every bug or crash or misfeature. In turn, this will
eliminate all fucking fashions and idiots in the software industry such
as the Design Patterns and eXtreme Programing or the TIMTOWTDI Perl
**** or the OOP fad or the fucking “Universal Modeling Languageâ€
****.

So the solution is to understand and spread the word that the problem is
unneccessary? Feh! Try something that will actually get the code
monkeys writing better stuff!