🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9106040032.AA23987@hadar.fai.com> adobe!hadar!michael@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU (Michael Young) writes:
> [a whole bunch of good comments]

As someone who has also spent a good deal of time trying to figure things out,
I agree with the intent of this.  However, I just wanted to make a couple of
points.

Firstly, where the manual pages or whatever weren't satisfactory, I usually
found the source code to be quite instructive.  This was especially the
case with the tutorial examples (I'm talking IV 2.6 here).  They were good
for getting your feet on the ground.  More complicated work mean't looking
at the library source.  This was useful for me, but I think many
people wouldn't agree and I certainly don't blame them.

Secondly, and I apologize if this is already obvious, it is important to
remember that the resources involved in writing the kind of material you
describe are a factor.  Perhaps the people at Stanford are trying as hard as
they can to do what they are doing.  Maybe it would take someone who had
learned the ins and the outs to write such a set of documentation.
I'll betcha somebody is working on it right now.

I'm not a guru, yet, so I'm not writing this thing.  But if I were, I sure
would jump at the chance to contribute.

--
Jack Unrue
jdu4855@cs.rit.edu