Re: Usability: Technical details in package descriptions?
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:33:32 -0300, Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca> said:
>> 2. Programs written in obscure languages may prove unmaintainable
>> if
>> the original developer disappears. Besides threatening
>> obsolescence, this can be a security issue.
> You've furnished a reason *not* to put the language in the
> description (if I wrote a package in an "obscure" language and took
> your point to heart, I'd not want to advertise the fact). Besides,
> what is obscure? Ruby? Ocaml? Snobol? Fortran? Scheme? How is
> a user to assess whether these are up-and-coming languages, less
> popular but still well supported, or completely obsolete? I doubt
> if most users know the difference.
BZZZT. The idea is not to con the user into using the package willy
nilly, the idea is to provide him enough information to make an
informed choice.
If providing you with information about the implementation
language causes you to change your decision, then delibrately
withholding that information is akin to fraud and underhanded dealing
we should steer clear off.
> Now we're *really* getting touchy-feely. I think we're losing sight
> of the goal: the user, reading the description, should get a sense
> of what the package does, whether it is likely to meet their needs,
> and whether it offers distinct advantages over any of the
> alternatives. While I can appreciate that some small minority of
> users out their are aware of the "mindset", "aesthetic" and
> "development culture" of an implementation language, and therefore
> have some mild bias towards packages implemented in it, it certainly
> isn't a primary indicator of whether the package is suitable for a
> particular use or not.
I also select a program based on languages I know; since it
makes it more likely that I can tweak the program rto my needs, or
help with stalled development. Given a choice, I would invest in the
learning curve of programs I can help modify, develop, and contribute
to.
Since I find the information useful, I am not going to pretend
my suers are idiots who couldn't possibly make use of such
iformation, because, you see, I am so special, and only I can use the
information, not the oh so dumb users.
So, I am going to continue to provide information in the
descriptions of my packages that I would find useful, in the hopes
that it is useful to the users of my packages as well.
manoj
--
Encyclopedia for sale by father. Son knows everything.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: