kilon.alios wrote
I said there is no official documentation, no chapter on PBE or Pharo for the Enterprise.
I see the point. Looking from a new user perspective, how would someone who has not followed the mailing lists for the last few years know that e.g.: - there are two Spec papers, one (which contains some advanced-but-common use cases) which may never have been released (I got it directly from Ben) - various common NB gotchas are only on ML threads (to my knowledge) - the best Zinc documentation is on Sven's site (is there an in-image link)? etc... And now Kilon is projecting that the Playground will have the same difficulty. While premature since 4.0 hasn't been released yet, this seems a valid concern. So how do we provide a single launching point for new users to find relevant documentation? Maybe a start would be to put all these outside links into Help System? To the point of "documentation is hard to write/keep current", the best documentation is executable. And the best executable documentation is part of the development cycle. One area in which IMHO we are severely lacking, and which, if done right, would alleviate some of this stress, is to layer a clear set of BDD-style Behavioral Specifications (Use-case driven acceptance tests) on top of the unit tests. For me, usually our tests were designed from an "is it working" perspective in which "how you use it" is obscured. Bringing it back to the current Workspace -> Playground situation, Specs would be a tremendous help in replacing existing tools because it would be clear what the old tool had promised to users. For me, part of the fear of cleaning up Morphic is always - I don't know what the design contract is! Which parts are internal? Which are experiments? If I implement a new clean TextMorph, what behavior would it have to have? My 2c... ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/playground-vs-workspace-tp4794667p4794964.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.