discuss: LinuxDoc vs. DocBook (was Re: Staff Election)
Subject:
Re: LinuxDoc vs. DocBook (was Re: Staff Election)
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
10 Mar 2005 21:48:56 -0000
Message-Id: <20050310214837.GA1457@lafn.org>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 10:54:14AM +0000, Martin Wheeler wrote:
>
> [a whole load of gubbins explaining that as programming in Ada or Modula2
> takes up less linespace than Python or PHP, we should replace one with the
> other]
Is it true that Python takes more linespace? Here's from a Python
tutorial:
Python allows writing very compact and readable programs. Programs
written in Python are typically much shorter than equivalent C or C++
So one could infer that what applies to C, C++ also applies to Ada and
Modula2. So I think that your premise is wrong, hence the implied
conclusion is also wrong. But even if your premise is right, what does
it have to do with LinuxDoc vs DocBook.
Let's just suppose that Python took more linespace to write. But Python
is often easier to write a program in and debugging is easier since one
can try it out interactively. Python is a very high level language. So
using something that takes more linespace, like Python per your erroneous premise, turns out to be easier.
Thus since DocBook takes more linespace is it, like your hypothetical
Python, easier than writing it in LinuxDoc? No. So what is the analogy.
The marginal utility of the excess characters and excess tags in DocBook
(as compared to LinuxDoc) is generally significantly less than the
utility of the non-markup contents of the document.
Although DocBook is more powerful and has many more tags, the benefits
of writing in DocBook instead of LinuxDoc may have a benefit-cost ratio
greater than unity. But the "opportunity cost" (an economic term) of
LDP using DocBook has been very high, showing that it's not worthwhile
to use DocBook. This opportunity cost is the cost of spending time with
DocBook when the time should have been spent fixing outdated documents.
It's also the cost of not attracting new authors and lack of maintaining
docs due to the difficulty of DocBook.
> >>Sorry, I just don't get it. Does LinuxDoc pre-date DocBook, or is it a
> >>reaction to DocBook's perceived difficulty?
> ...
> >It predates it.
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, David Lawyer wrote:
> Wrong.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake. But in LDP, LinuxDoc came first
since this was LDP's standard markup until we started going for DocBook
around 2000. So many people in LDP (like me) erroneously thought that
LinuxDoc came first since it had been used by LDP for several years
prior to the introduction of DocBook to LDP. Also, your post on this
implies that the name "LinuxDoc" may predate the name "DocBook" even
thought development of what was to become DocBook started first.
So it's a long story that I wasn't aware of. Thanks again.
> But I don't expect you to take a blind bit of notice.
I just thanked you :-). Do I deserve this?
> Fanaticism is notoriously careless of historical fact.
Please, lets keep ad hominem remarks out of our discussions.
David Lawyer
