2010/5/2 Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r@gmail.com:
Quality in general is *always* better served by a proofreader than by automatic spelling / grammar tools. This is part of why I want to do documentation in the trunk: because the trunk model gives us gatekeeping and peer review.
If someone finds something in one of my commits which reduces the quality of the docs, I'd treat that as build breakage, hamburger-hat and all.
Yes. Where are those proofreaders? The trunk breaks when someone screw up in the code. Will it break when documentation is screwed up? There is no safeguard as far as documentation is concerned. A spell checker is a safeguard.
We have a great case study in term of documentation: our wiki. Anybody can edit pages and it's easy. It just won't happen. The result is underwhelming.
If you want integrated spell checking, you're probably going to have to do the development work yourself, as it doesn't seem to be a priority to anyone else.
One thing I keep learning with software is YAGNI. http://c2.com/xp/YouArentGonnaNeedIt.html
Can we have this on the main page of the Squeak website, please?! Beside the download links. "You Aren't Gonna Need It" [but] "Download Now!". :)
Quote from the website:
“Even if you're totally, totally, totally sure that you'll need a feature later on, don't implement it now. Usually, it'll turn out either a) you don't need it after all, or b) what you actually need is quite different from what you foresaw needing earlier. “
Writing formal texts requires spell checking, whether it is automated or manually performed, which excludes a). You make it sounds like nobody ever use a hardcover dictionary or something. It's not going to be different later than now, as b) implies, because spell checking is not a new kind of feature; it is a widespread feature and every software that has it use it in a similar fashion. We already know the implications of a spell checker and it is not experimental in any way.
Besides, we even have a spell checker with a list of suggestions when a method is not written properly. Don't you ever use it?!
YAGNI makes sense in many instances but I believe this is one that it does NOT make sense. It seems to be used as a cognitive bias. It'd be much simpler if you'd just write “We're not going to have a spell checker, Ian. Give it up.” :)
Ian.