| Richard Erlacher 03/05/10 18:20 Read: 257 times Denver, Co USA Msg Score: +2 +2 Good Question |
#173896 - Has any effort gone into documentation? Responding to: Jan Waclawek's previous message |
I've found, over the years, that open-source materials generally have lots of information about hot-rodding, installation, configuration, modification, etc. A simple, clear, concise user-manual is often among the missing.
I've yet to see a document that actually tells you how to use LINUX, for example, yet there are terabytes of info about how to make it do this or that, yet nothing to tell you the basics about how to make it do useful work. Example ... (re: LINUX) ... I recently had a colleague set up a LINUX box for me. Purpose: Run the XILINX ISE software under LINUX. Result: There's no doc on how to adjust the display configuration so it can operate in native mode for the LCD monitor I use. Further, there's no way to determine how to get the OS configured back to the way what little doc exists says it should. It's the same way with SDCC. There are volumes dealing with various installation/configuration options, yet not one that clearly tells you how to use SDCC in order to produce useable output, simulate it, and install it in your target environment without clobbering you with countless configuration options. Yes, open-source stuff needs to be installed and, sometimes, further configured, particularly under LINUX, but why does that have to take up 999 pages of the 1000-page user guide? Why can't they be segregated? I only need to configure it once. I need a thorough and complete user guide every day. RE |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SDCC download | Erik Malund | 03/05/10 11:53 |
| Here you go... | Robert Revens | 03/05/10 12:13 |
| newest | Jan Waclawek | 03/05/10 12:30 |
| Has any effort gone into documentation? | Richard Erlacher | 03/05/10 18:20 |
| documentation | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 03:16 |
| Just to add... | Robert Revens | 03/06/10 04:02 |
| more howto-s | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 05:13 |
| the first 'oddity' is ... | Erik Malund | 03/06/10 06:46 |
| I think you dreamt that one eric | Jez Smith | 03/06/10 07:27 |
| No - it's a well-known Gotcha! in SDCC! | Andy Neil | 03/06/10 11:46 |
| Reference: ISRs (or prototypes) must be in same file as main | Andy Neil | 03/07/10 01:04 |
| linking | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 14:36 |
| I see it not correct | Erik Malund | 03/06/10 14:51 |
| I don't understand | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 15:04 |
| what is it you do not understand? | Erik Malund | 03/07/10 07:11 |
| Does it not recognise... | Andy Neil | 03/07/10 07:25 |
| Surely not... | Robert Revens | 03/07/10 08:42 |
| "magic" | Jan Waclawek | 03/07/10 10:44 |
| That's not the fault of 'C'!! | Andy Neil | 03/07/10 13:14 |
| highly unusal, but | Erik Malund | 03/07/10 18:42 |
| Try java etc | Oliver Sedlacek | 03/08/10 07:54 |
| I now see why is this confusing | Jan Waclawek | 03/07/10 10:27 |
| emulation? | Andy Peters | 03/11/10 15:53 |
| Source-level debug | Robert Revens | 03/11/10 16:15 |
| symbol information | Maarten Brock | 03/12/10 04:05 |
| re: symbol information | Andy Peters | 03/15/10 18:40 |
| hex-file download? | Maarten Brock | 03/16/10 05:46 |
hex vs omf | Andy Peters | 03/16/10 12:08 |
| Keil proprietary stuff? | Andy Neil | 03/12/10 05:01 |
| extended omf51 | Juergen Christoph | 03/12/10 07:11 |
| omf51 vs cdb | Jan Waclawek | 03/15/10 16:48 |
| proprietary file format? | James Hinnant | 03/15/10 01:22 |
| I don't see why not | Andy Neil | 03/15/10 01:33 |
| So, what do *you* mean by, "proprietary" ? | Andy Neil | 03/16/10 02:15 |
| AutoCAD | Per Westermark | 03/16/10 03:15 |
| Yes | Per Westermark | 03/15/10 01:37 |
| patentable vs proprietary | James Hinnant | 03/15/10 23:39 |
| Proprietary is a questin of ownership, not protection | Per Westermark | 03/16/10 01:06 |
| bouncing email | Maarten Brock | 03/07/10 14:38 |



