[Eric] outdated “Technical Reports”

[Studio - PM]

Surprised realizing that some of our now rather old & outdated “Technical Reports”(*) are still being downloaded, we'd be curiuos knowing the reasons of such stubborn interest(**), so to possibly re-consider our future activities.

See you.

- P.M.

- - - - -=

(*) That we evaluated as both too hard and useless work.

(**) Either in this Forum or directly to our “Studio”'s ref. e-address, as shown on the opening pages of the very same “Tech. Reports”.

<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>

[Christos Sevastiadis]

Hi,

They are the only reference and help manuals for Eric. They helped me to
understand a lot of the Eric's behavior. For sure they need updating, but
even like this they are very helpful.

Christos Sevastiadis

[Studio - PM]

> they are very helpful.
Glad to know it has been of help for you, but here $B!H(Bsimple$B!I(B and specific usefulness was not my only purpose. About this $B!H(BTech.Report$B!I(B works I was much more ambitious and, in this regard, I failed.


My goal was that of proposing and proving a $B!H(Brevolutionary$B!I(B way of documenting high tech. Tools (as certainly Eric is), based on the principle hereafter exposed, so to hopefully collect a consent and gather a bunch of qualified and aware users now on asking for nothing less that that.


Just for instance now there is another high tech. s/w tool I'd like to process this same way, it's the $B!H(BMediathekView$B!I(B [to give it a look you'd need knowing a little German]. Enterprise that revealed simply impossible, as the community there, both designers and users, not only refused to collaborate (just the opposite of Eric's case), but ware scornful, arrogant and offensive: "We are already perfect as we are, no need for any English Tech.Ref.Doc, and if you encounter any difficulty using our product it is simply because you are an idiot, not worth minding".


Anyhow, this the revolutionary principle I had tried to advocate, propose and prove with an actual and massive doc-example:

$B"*(B The primary reference for the Tech.Doc is the User, NOT the producer, nor the product in itself.


As a consequence of this fundamental, primary principle there is a whole set of consequent consequences, which would well be matter for a congress producing a final chart, a final Declaration of the Right of Users.

Not having been capable of convincing any other fellow users of the value of such a cause now, old and tired [sob], I gave up my solitary and vain struggle.

So long.

- P.M.


________________________________
From: Christos Sevastiadis <***@auth.gr>
Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 7:34 AM
To: Studio-***@hotmail.com
Cc: ***@riverbankcomputing.com
Subject: Re: [Eric] outdated $B!H(BTechnical Reports$B!I(B

Hi,

They are the only reference and help manuals for Eric. They helped me to understand a lot of the Eric's behavior. For sure they need updating, but even like this they are very helpful.

Christos Sevastiadis

[Christos Sevastiadis]

Dear Pietro,

I don't think that you failed in something. The Eric Technical Reports are
a comprehensive documentation about Eric. They are laying between a
Technical Reference and a Tutorial, and they offer a third view, like a
reviewer's one, to the Eric IDE. The suggestions and the criticism in the
Tech.Rep text are also a very nice way to understand the Eric IDE
philosophy. For me it was little strange on the beginning, but reading it
more I found it also amusing. Of course they need to be updated. A little
problem is that because of somehow personal way of author's view and
writing, they are not very suitable for contribution. Somebody has to
follow the manner of the full text to make changes and update the
documents. Anyway,for me a way to overcome the Eric's complexity was to
read them, and in many cases to search in them as reference documentation.
Thus, they are were very helpful for me and I suppose for many other Eric
users.

Sincerely
Christos Sevastiadis

[Studio - PM]

> don't think that you failed

I'll try to explain why, and in which sense, I evaluate the cited “Tech.Reports” as a failure.


Please consider and mentally compare the potential productivity of an average Eric IDE user(*) possibly relaying or NOT relaying upon the related “Tech.Reports”. Probably incomparable.


Well, in spite of such an obvious evaluation, no one of the many different User Groups, nor High Tech. tools Producers, nor Tech. Writers associations I got in touch with, considered worthwhile to take into consideration my independent & fair way of dealing with tech. doc., as exemplified with such Eric Tech.Reports. Most of them reacted with indifference, some even expressing annoyance and disdain. In this sense what I intended, and proposed, as a model of how-to-do, revealed not convincing enough. In this sense it was a failure.

Last history-case happened recently with the “MediathekView” community(**), both designer & users.


Now, more than discouraged, I feel convinced not to devote any other bit of my precious residual time [I'm rather old] to such a Don Quixotesque endeavor.

That's it.

- P.M.

- - - - -=

(*) For curiosity's sake, what's your field of Eric-IDE production?

(**) Further details about this MediathekView case just upon request.

[Mikhail Terekhov]

On Saturday, November 3, 2018, Studio - PM <studio-***@hotmail.com
<mailto:studio-***@hotmail.com>> wrote:

*>  don't think that you failed*

*   I'll try to explain why, and in which sense, I evaluate the
cited “Tech.Reports” as a failure. *


*Please consider and mentally compare the potential productivity of
an average Eric IDE user(*) possibly relaying or NOT relaying upon
the related “Tech.Reports”. Probably incomparable. *


Well, in spite of such an obvious evaluation, no one of the many
different User Groups, nor High Tech. tools Producers, nor Tech.
Writers associations I got in touch with, considered worthwhile to
take into consideration my independent & fair way of dealing with
tech. doc., as exemplified with such Eric Tech.Reports. *Most of
them reacted with indifference, some even expressing annoyance and
disdain. **In this sense what I intended, and proposed, as a model
of how-to-do, revealed not convincing enough. In this sense it was a
failure*
**


It is sad, but I think you are right, it is a failure. Despite of
quality of the Eric Tech.Reports. I really think the report was great
and I appreciate your efforts. At the same time the failure was almost
inevitable from the very beginning IMHO. From the commercial point of
view Eric is not so widespread piece of software that publishers would
line up for the commercial book about it. The only way one can deal with
it is to help Detlev make Eric even greater :). From the community POV
your model, while having good points like user centricity, it has some
not very appealing property - it is closed source. There are many
disadvantages in this property. Most obvious is what is happening now -
you've lost an ability or interest to continue the project and it is
dead. Another one is that it is hard to keep up with the original
project alone, the report quickly became outdated. If you'd open the
sources of the report and, even better, offered to include it in the
Eric itself, then it would had a chance to live and develop further (and
you'd not feel so solitary :)). Another point is that with open source
projects it is important IMHO not just use the functionality they
provide but also to learn from them and participate in development. In
closed source projects all the fun of development and know-how owner
keeps for himself, leaving users just bug reporting which is not that
fun, IMHO again.
Anyway, thanks for your efforts and good luck in your other endeavors.

Regards,
Mikhail

[Studio - PM]

1/2> user centricity

2/2> if you'd open the sources

<!> You'd really pointed out two crucial, tightly connected features.


“User centricity” is so crucial that I'd be more than happy to open all sources of mine to whomever only after they'd proved to be willing and capable of granting it. And, even more important, not only with Eric, but also with any other project for which I'd be more than happy to offer my contribution, provided conceived and aimed at satisfying, not betraying, the principles in which I believe, and whose validity I tried to demonstrate with a real practical example.


> include it [the Tech.Report] in the Eric [project] itself

That would be ruinous, as independence is a crucial requisite to the real benefit of all involved parties, producer's included [in this case, Detlev's included, whose equally independent and fair contribution was essential for the validity of the resulting Report].


<!> But, you see, it is precisely this kind of lively discussion and argumentation as yours that I find so refreshing, so promising.

Yours, refreshed

- P.M.

[Christos Sevastiadis]

Dear Pietro,

Maybe other software projects are not suitable for your way of documenting
software. Nobody is for everybody. But if you feel that what you are doing
is hopeless I think that contribution is the only way to keep alive your
spirit and effort. The Technical Reports can be developed independently of
Eric's. I don't think that the Eric community will be negative.

I use Eric for scientific and engineering software development. Also I want
to introduce Eric to postgraduate students for Python developing.

Sincerely
Christos Sevastiadis

[Studio - PM]

> I use Eric for scientific and engineering software development.

Fine. And, once a project completed, as a project, how do you actually deploy it?

I mean:

– In what type of environment, what pre-requisites?

– An environment of use without any IDE, or …

– Using what kind of package and set-up procedure?

<!?> That always puzzled me, what really happens at the end of the per-natal life, when the real life of an Eric project begins...


Highly welcome testimony of possibly different practices and experiences of deployment.

Thank you.

- P.M.

[Christos Sevastiadis]

Pietro,

I am very fresh in Python software development and I use VCS for deploying
(Mercurial on Attlassian bitbucket.org). I use Eric's VCS functionalities,
along with TortoiseHg and Attlasian SourceTree. I don't use any package and
set-up procedure yet.

Christos