Jim --

Actually, NONE of the MS language documentation could be considered masterpieces. IMHO, the VB docs aren't that good either, and I would be very surprised if the C++ docs are any better.

The other languages that you mentioned (COBOL, FORTRAN, etc.) have been around since the planet cooled off, so it is no wonder that their documentation is much more extensive. Hell, it was all written on papryus. I did a lot of COBOL and assembler in my earlier days, and back then the docs were lacking, too...seemed like I was always having to go up the mountain and talk with a wise old bit-pushing master to get the information I needed.

Some things just never seem to change, do they?

Bill

PS -- Look at the bright side, Jim...if the VFP docs were any good at all, you wouldn't have a good excuse for hanging out here at the UT!


>Bill,
>
>At the root of all this "need" for Fox periodicals and publications id the absolute poor quality of the VFP documentation! There would hardly be a need for any of the 'suppot' facilities you named *IF* the documentation did the job that proper documentation IS SUPPOSED TO DO.
>
>Some proofs that the documentation is severely wanting is:
>
>1) Look at how many "How to. . ." articles are published in the MS KB.
> - and they are all basically poorly done, too
>2) Look at how many "problems" are answered as "working as designed. . . in the MS KB.
> - If the documentation did the job it is supposed to, *NONE* of these would even come up as "problems"
>3) The existence of thick and expensive books on VFP
> - There are fewer in light of publishers' perception that VFP is on the MS kill list, and I'm sure the writers appreciate the income, but they should not NEED to exist
>4) The existence of FoxPro Advisor and FoxTalk
>5) The existence of UT and MS Newsgroup for VFP and other places, not the least of which are sites maintained by loyal and knowledgeable FP/VFP adherents.
>
>None of the above is actually "normal" - you didn't see such for COBOL or FORTRAN or PL/1 or ASSEMBLER or the other older languages. Yet, for reasons beyond me, we permit it for *many* MS products (specifically).
>
>You'll get lots of people who say the documentation for VFP is adequate. I was close to in that camp once, when I really got a kick out of trying various permutations and combinations of commands to beat a certain problem or devise some workaround for something which didn't work right. Then I realized that this was costing me LOTS of my time, and I began to resent very much doing theis kind of UNNECESSARY work.
>
>I read all documentation voraciously. In the case of VFP the argument can sometimes be accurately made that "its in there somewhere" Well, that's about as useful as screen doors on a submarine - if you can't find it where you expect to find it( in the Help), then it might just as well not be there.
>
>VFP 6.0 is said to be aimed squarely at the novice. They had better have done a vast improvement on the Help, or the other effort will got for naught.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jim N
>
>>Man, you guys are a tough audience! But I tend to agree with most of what you've all said about FPA, and I sincerely hope that the folks at FPA are taking notes.
>>
>>Unfortunately, we Fox dudes and dudettes do not have a lot to choose from when it comes to Fox periodicals...and NOT ONE of the few that are available can be classified as "stellar." Finding Fox technical information can sometimes seem a little too much like detective work. It often takes an inordinate amount of effort to dredge up the facts. When you consider all of the sources we have to refer to (UT, KB, FPA, FT, etc., etc. -- note that I listed UT first), it is no wonder that we spend so much time running hither and yon to get the information we need.
>>
>>I hope that the FPA staff will view these criticisms as providing them with an "opportunity to excel." FPA can, indeed, be the stellar resource that it ought to be. We denizens of FoxWorld would benefit immensely, and so would they.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>>Jeff ---
>>>
>>>>For me it's nothing more than a 15 minute read while on the can.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>ROFLMAO ... Exactly!!!!! And then it goes in the file cabinet for possible review on the future...