discuss: [ncm-nospam@cantrip.org: C++ Programming HOWTO]
Subject:
Re: [ncm-nospam@cantrip.org: C++ Programming HOWTO]
From:
Poet/Joshua Drake ####@####.####
Date:
23 Dec 2001 05:07:04 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112222204330.24818-100000@commandprompt.com>
Hello,
The LDP is a repository for all documentation that relates to Open Source,
it is just supposed to have a Linux tilt.
J
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Bill Lee wrote:
>Is the LINUX DOCUMENTATION PROJECT even the appropriate place for a discussion
>of a programming language? Sure, installation problems. Sure, issues within the
>language that are Linux-specific. But a HOWTO on C++???? I don't think so. Good
>grief! There must be a thousand different C++ how-to books on the market, some
>very good, some rotten. Why should there be yet another here?
>
>Not to mention that there are a FEW of us out here that may think what Alavoor
>has written may be right. :-) But it (or any other language-centric discussion)
>doesn't seem to be appropriate here.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bill Lee
>(Just another Linux user that spent a lot of time in BOTH the C++ and Ada
>worlds.)
>
>
> Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The real problem is that most of Alavoor's stuff is like this. Remember
>> Alavoor's was the person that originally wrote the PostgreSQL-HOWTO (which
>> I am currently replacing).
>>
>> The PostgreSQL-HOWTO was so horrendous that RedHat won't ship it with the
>> LDP archive.
>>
>> J
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, David Merrill wrote:
>>
>> >FYI, guys, this is not the first such complaint we've had about the C++
>> >HOWTO. Alavoor does do regular updates, and maintains several other
>> >HOWTOs. But we have to do something about this one.
>> >
>> >It seems we need to assign a new maintainer for it, or prevail upon
>> >Alavoor to get rid of the idiosyncratic stuff. Anybody want to take
>> >this one on?
>> >
>> >If we can't get someone to work on it soon, I think we should pull it
>> >from the site until it is reworked, just like we did with the Postgres
>> >document. This is not the kind of document we want in the LDP.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> --
>> <COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY>
>> <PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT>
>> <PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
>> <WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
>> --
>> Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
>> start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
>> --
>>
>> _________________________
>> http://list.linuxdoc.org/
>
>_________________________
>http://list.linuxdoc.org/
>
--
--
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
--
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
--
