Thomas Finneid writes:
> I have to say I disagree with having the documentation in a wiki.
> The sourceforge wiki pages are a mess, full of clutter not relevant to
> me when I want to read the documentation and get some work done. Jde is
> a tool I use at work, so I dont want to waste time with superfluous
> navigation, looking at adverts etc when trying to learn how to use jde.
> Additionally, I need the documentation to be available to me offline as
I think most have addressed this. Yeah, I know it isn't the best, but
it's a good stop gab solution until we have more time to address it in
more depth. Keep in mind that this project didn't (hasn't) seen much
activity and it started to lag behind the changes (advances) of the
> What I was thinking was to redesign the web pages and the documentation
> with the same design principles as that of postgressql.org or go-oo.org
> (a fork of open office).
Ian maintains the documentation at this point in time. He's decided
to use the wiki. This goes on the table for discussion after the
> In my opinion, the biggest problem with emacs and jde is that
> documentation and such are poorly designed and focuses only on how a
> lisp programmer thinks about things. This makes it really hard for
> newcomers to come to terms with what emacs and jdee can provide of
> benefits and how it works.
On the contrary, the Emacs specific documentation (i.e. how to use the
tool) is very good. The power of the tool comes from writing code (in
this case to write other code) in the language the tool was written
in. It's like Eclipse plug-ins, but much more dynamic, powerful,
useful and much more return (as in the law of increasing returns).
> Yes, most emacs users are programmers, but when I use a tool to do
Right, most Emacs users are programmers, but there are plenty that
aren't that get along just fine using most of the configuration
defaults and copy/pasting configurations they find/see from others and
the net. For example, my boss's boss, who is in middle management,
uses Emacs quite a bit and doesn't do any programming.
> another job, I dont want to have to consider how the tool is built, I
> just want to use the tool. So I want documentation that addresses that
> aspect. When I want to extend the tool, then I can look at documentation
> for developers.
I don't really know what to say here. I think very little knowledge
of lisp is needed to use JDE. Phillip Lord mentioned a configuration
wizard which could setup/write emacs configuration. If there was such
a thing, I think it would address most, or usually all, lisp exposure
to those that didn't want to touch it.
If you want to do, what I think from what to do from what you said:
extend JDE, then you (one) will have to write lisp to do that.
> Len Trigg wrote:
> > Paul Landes wrote:
> >> The developer I'm speaking of just started this work last week and is
> >> still catching up with the administration part of things (including
> >> the communication you are speaking of). He's completed 24 sections.
> > That sounds great! The wiki style should prove more adaptive than the
> > old documentation (particularly for things like letting people add
> > their own pages for third-party add-ons to JDEE).
> > Is it possible to do a wiki-export for distribution of off-line
> > documentation along with JDEE, or is online the only option?
> > (My point about using the mailing lists is that there isn't really a
> > downside to having the devel list be reasonably chatty - there isn't
> > so much going on that people will get swamped with email, but it does
> > keep people informed when things are happening, keeping interest up).
> > Cheers,
> > Len.
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> jdee-devel mailing list