Guys, we are simply not going to have API documentation until Mach 4 is done. We already tried documenting it, spent nearly a whole month doing so, all to have it become totally useless because Mach 4 changed so much. 4 weeks blown to high heaven! A lot of the changes have been based on your comments, suggestions, and feature requests.
But the docs that we did were really nice for the two weeks they were valid.
It a little difficult to understand how MACH4 could change so drastically this late in the game when MACH3 has existed for so long. It not like the topic was new and unfamiliar. Just sayin'
There are a couple of hundred calls that are just in a list. All of these changed? Can we get a one sentence description at least of the ones that are less-than-self-explanatory?
Specifically can we get USER FIELDS added to the tool table or other data structures for use by Lua scripts to do clever and amazing things?
So docs will come in time. And we are WELL aware that everyone wants them. But we are not a 500 employee company. We don't have someone to put on the documentation task full time, as bad as I wish it we were able to do so. That and the fact that whomever it is that does the documentations will also need to be a C++ programmer. So it will be Brian or myself doing the documentation.
Just as a suggestion, you might consider that the skill set for documentation writing is different from Technical expertise. Being able to put a complex process into layman's terms is what is needed, methinks. At least for the hobby version. This typically involves the skilled use of analogy.
You hired my friend Ray Livingston to write the desperately needed programmer's reference for MACH3. Prior to that document being produced, MACH3 was nearly impossible to comprehend . . at least for me.
Why can't you guys hire Pappabear or other qualified person to get something moving?
This is the fear: the reality is that there will always be bugs. There will always be new features to add. When will this time materialize to concentrate on documentation . . . I mean realistically?
You guys are programmers. Writing docs is about like being poked in the eye with a sharp stick. I got that clearly from you comments where 'well I REALLY ENJOYED my 4 weeks writing documentation, but it is unusable, so I get to do it AGAIN . .yippee! . . was missing from the paragraph.
No need to preach to the choir . . I hate writing docs. I'd rather do dishes than write docs.
BTW, I was the poor sap that did the month long documentation stint that became relegated to uselessness. Has anyone else experienced working a solid month on something and having it all be for naught? It is NOT cool. Not at all.
You definitely don't want to live in my world. Proof of concept, cost/benefit analysis, failure analysis, etc, can take a long time and often result in the decision to abandon a project. I guess it is debatable if that constitutes 'for naught'. My criteria is 'did I get paid for the work'. If yes, then no harm no foul. If no, then I picked the wrong horse . . or chicken in this case, I suppose.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? All I can say is the guy developing the egg was pissed when the guy developing the chicken changed the chicken. Or vice verse. Even if it was the same guy developing both!
Unless the Chicken Change was adding a live birth feature . . . in which case the whole egg issue was for naught . . . typically right after I finally designed a perfect award winning egg.