Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Trowel:
**
Quote
Originally posted by zhouj:
I will not be giving any further rebuttals given that it's apparent no one does debate on these boards, or even reads all the posts given that I've already said that I would appreciate it if Martin Turner could do a write-up of his viewpoint. Unfortunately, it seems everyone on the boards is a selective reader who chooses to overlook that fact and then proceed to attempt to admonish me.
I started my earlier post with a quote from Cap'n P. because my strongest concern was that you might take to heart his advice: "If you still insist on making a guide, zhouj, don't do it alone." I think you have good ideas to contribute, and I'll be glad if you continue to contribute them, but from what you've written here you don't strike me as the kind of person who would make a good co-author on a written work. As to Turner doing a write-up of his viewpoint.... Well, if he wants to have a section of his own in your guide that's his decision, but I rightly or wrongly thought you were implying that he hadn't already given his views, which I would say that he has. With proper attribution, you can certainly quote from his previous writings in your own work, or link to them. Since your goal is to be of use to your readers, you might consider doing such things. It won't make what you are doing worthless if you don't, though.
Quote
Originally posted by zhouj:
Something concise is a summary. For this topic, the details should be clearly shown given the process. A phase of development cannot be adequately described or summarized in two lines. If concise is better, why are research papers so detailed? Why do items such as doctoral dissertations exist.
OK, not everything can be ultra-concise. By now you might have noticed that I tend to be rather verbose myself. Funny you should mention doctoral dissertations -- I just finished mine a few months ago, and recently spent two weeks trying to hack one of my chapters down to half its length so it would be acceptable for publication. Why? The journal has a 7000 word limit, in part because they value brevity -- short, information-packed morsels of text are often more likely to be read and remembered. I've found reading this thread informative, but exhausting. When I saw the short "commandments" in the other thread, I found them refreshing. I'll concede that it's probably true that not everything you want to say could be reduced to that format.
Quote
Originally posted by zhouj:
**Rest assured it, I'm sure someone will find something contentious within it. Hopefully, we will get a more definite opinion instead of the useless "Let's be ambiguous!" posts.
**
If anyone argued in favor of advice being more vague, I missed it. People suggested you should present a range of methodological choices for them to choose between, which is a different sort of thing. You've given your opinion that "the only thing that would do is confuse people," so I won't belabor this any farther, except to point out that our differences in how to characterize the posts you see as advocating ambiguity demonstrate my point that you probably should refrain from loosely paraphrasing other writers.
To end on a positive note, I'll repeat that I'll be glad to see your guide come out regardless of whether it is a polemic or a comparative analysis, Zhouj. I won't take it as definitive, but I will look at it, and at other advice sources, if and when I find myself in the planning stages of a large plug project.
Ugh. You know what this thread lacks that "110 Commandments" had? Humor. I need a good joke. 
**
What Im concerned about is that constant ignorance of the fact that I explicitly said that I wanted the opinions of at least Martin Turner and other developers. Youre also right that I wouldnt make a good co-author. In positions of teamwork, I prefer to be in control. Its something about wanting to fail only if Ive failed.
I believe he has given his views on the topic. However, I feel that he should be given the chance to formalize them and submit them as completed section in the guide rather a jumble of quotes and paraphrased ideas. I would also run the risk of putting words in his mouth and so I feel that if he wrote the section in the guide, it would avoid those issues.
My dad wrote a 138 page doctoral dissertation on inorganic chemistry in German despite the fact that he was a native speaker of Chinese. It goes both ways but if you look in journals like Scientific American or the more technical ones, youll notice that being concise is not too emphasize especially with intricate systems like the interaction of subatomic particles. (An arbitrary example.) I think the point is that there are extremes on both ends but most technical subjects entail that articles are not the most concise things in the world. In turn, I will concede that being concise is better for everyday conversations and for materials some less educated people may read.
The vibe Im getting from people is that theyre arguing that a guide should present every possible method and then let the reader choose. In other words, telling me that I should come to as few conclusions as possible in order to give them more choice. My issue with that, as you know, is that it would indeed confuse people and not be as beneficial as if I came to a conclusion of sorts and then gave alternate explanations, which is what is typically done. As I said before, I dislike paraphrasing the opinions of others, especially my opponents in a debate. Human nature tends to kick in sometimes.
As for the issues I have with the two posts presented, I prefer to have more detail and justifications, as both of them contained quite a few ambiguous points and presented an entire phase of development in two sentences. I personally feel that its at the other end of the spectrum in terms of wordiness and a little too extreme.
Similarly, I wish to end on a positive note. Some people may feel that Im arrogant, but theres a reason Im still here and working on a guide and trying to help.
------------------
(url="http://"http://www.zhouj.net/days/")Days of Glory(/url), Upcoming TC for EV: Nova
