There are commit messages. I expect most people to commit to Inbox (I am not a Trunk developer, for example.) Just like with code, we have to hope that core developers will read the diffs before they push something from the Inbox to the Trunk. <div>
<br></div><div>And one can introduce code that breaks things without introducing an obvious build breakage. It's a shame that natural language is so hard to write tests for:)</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not saying I don't think a spell checker is a good idea. I'm saying that I wouldn't block contributions of documentation because we don't have a spell checker. In fact, I'd even go as far as saying that a spelling error in an otherwise good comment where there previously had been none is still an improvement.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Let me cut to the chase and then kill the thread:</div><div><br></div><div>If you feel so strongly that we should have an integrated spell checker, why don't you implement or integrate one, and then push it to the Inbox? I would *love* to be able to spell check things in Squeak. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm not going to implement one, because my spelling is generally pretty good, and I'd rather spend my time on other things; e.g., writing class comments.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Ian Trudel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ian.trudel@gmail.com">ian.trudel@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">2010/5/2 Casey Ransberger <<a href="mailto:casey.obrien.r@gmail.com">casey.obrien.r@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div class="im">> Quality in general is *always* better served by a proofreader than by<br>
> automatic spelling / grammar tools. This is part of why I want to do<br>
> documentation in the trunk: because the trunk model gives us<br>
> gatekeeping and peer review.<br>
><br>
> If someone finds something in one of my commits which reduces the<br>
> quality of the docs, I'd treat that as build breakage, hamburger-hat<br>
> and all.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes. Where are those proofreaders? The trunk breaks when someone screw<br>
up in the code. Will it break when documentation is screwed up? There<br>
is no safeguard as far as documentation is concerned. A spell checker<br>
is a safeguard.<br>
<br>
We have a great case study in term of documentation: our wiki. Anybody<br>
can edit pages and it's easy. It just won't happen. The result is<br>
underwhelming.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> If you want integrated spell checking, you're probably going to have<br>
> to do the development work yourself, as it doesn't seem to be a<br>
> priority to anyone else.<br>
><br>
> One thing I keep learning with software is YAGNI.<br>
> <a href="http://c2.com/xp/YouArentGonnaNeedIt.html" target="_blank">http://c2.com/xp/YouArentGonnaNeedIt.html</a><br>
<br>
</div>Can we have this on the main page of the Squeak website, please?!<br>
Beside the download links. "You Aren't Gonna Need It" [but] "Download<br>
Now!". :)<br>
<br>
Quote from the website:<br>
<br>
“Even if you're totally, totally, totally sure that you'll need a<br>
feature later on, don't implement it now. Usually, it'll turn out<br>
either a) you don't need it after all, or b) what you actually need is<br>
quite different from what you foresaw needing earlier. “<br>
<br>
Writing formal texts requires spell checking, whether it is automated<br>
or manually performed, which excludes a). You make it sounds like<br>
nobody ever use a hardcover dictionary or something. It's not going to<br>
be different later than now, as b) implies, because spell checking is<br>
not a new kind of feature; it is a widespread feature and every<br>
software that has it use it in a similar fashion. We already know the<br>
implications of a spell checker and it is not experimental in any way.<br>
<br>
Besides, we even have a spell checker with a list of suggestions when<br>
a method is not written properly. Don't you ever use it?!<br>
<br>
YAGNI makes sense in many instances but I believe this is one that it<br>
does NOT make sense. It seems to be used as a cognitive bias. It'd be<br>
much simpler if you'd just write “We're not going to have a spell<br>
checker, Ian. Give it up.” :)<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
Ian.<br>
--<br>
<a href="http://mecenia.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://mecenia.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</div></div><br><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Casey Ransberger<br>
</div>