Casey,

you made my point much better than I could. Thanks. Special thanks for
the YAGNI pointer - I should have remembered that one. :-)

Best,

Michael

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Casey Ransberger
<casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> On Sunday, May 2, 2010, Ian Trudel <ian.trudel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2010/5/2 Michael Haupt <mhaupt at gmail.com>:
>>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Ian Trudel <ian.trudel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It is an unexpected comment from a German. My experience in the German
>>>> market made it clear Germans demand high-quality writings — in German
>>>> that is. The companies I have worked for were paying top dollars for
>>>> near-perfect German writings, from advertisement to documentation.
>>>
>>> see, that's what stereotypes are for: being reconsidered. :-)
>>
>> I see. Companies however collect demographic data and it makes sense
>> to consider such feedback. The important is to make a decision in a
>> knowledgeable manner. Spell checker could be entirely excluded but at
>> least it would be a decision taken in knowledge of its advantages and
>> disadvantages. :)
>>
>>> I think it is much more important to get some documentation available.
>>> Polishing is always possible. There is no business contract involved
>>> here, and no $$$ lurking. At least not for me.
>>
>> Some documentation is already available: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak
>>
>> Polishing did not happen.
>>
>> o_O
>>
>>>> My point is that we have more to gain to do it right from the ground
>>>> up. The efforts required to interface with a spellchecker library is
>>>> much less now than rewriting documentation later. ...
>>>
>>> Correct spelling alone doesn't make good quality, does it?
>>
>> You're right. Every detail matters to make good quality. *grin*
>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> Quality is something I take at heart and I usually refrain from
>> releasing anything that does not match a minimum quality standard as
>> far as open source contribution goes and I release commercial work
>> only when it matches my highest quality standard. A spell checker is
>> among the tools I use to write documentation, articles, etc. I will
>> survive if it's not in our HelpSystem but I know it will become an
>> additional hurdle to me. I will probably end up writing in OpenOffice
>> and transfer back in Squeak. Painful.
>>
>> Anyway, when are we getting HelpSystem integrated to the trunk again?
>> We could be typing in there instead. :)))
>>
>> Ian.
>> --
>> http://mecenia.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>
> --
> Casey Ransberger
>
>