How to convert (unicode) text to image?
thomas at jollybox.de
Mon Aug 30 12:50:32 CEST 2010
On Monday 30 August 2010, it occurred to rurpy at yahoo.com to exclaim:
> Face the facts dude. The Python docs have some major problems.
> They were pretty good when Python was a new, cool, project used
> by a handful of geeks. They are good relative to the "average"
> (whatever that is) open source project -- but that bar is so low
> as to be a string lying on the ground.
Actually, the Python standard library reference manual is excellent. At least
that's my opinion.
Granted, it's not necessarily the best in the world. It could probably be
better. But that goes for just about every documentation effort there is.
What exactly are you comparing the Python docs to, I wonder? Obviously not
something like Vala, but that goes without saying. "kj" said that the Perl
docs were better. I can't comment on that. I also won't comment on the sorry
mess that the language "Perl" is, either.
There are a few documentation efforts that I recognize are actually better
than the Python docs: Firstly, the MSDN Library docs for the .Net framework.
Not that I refer to it much, but it is excellent, and it probably was a pretty
darn expensive project too. Secondly, the libc development manual pages on
Linux and the BSDs. Provided you know your way around the C library, they are
really a top-notch reference.
If you were comparing it to the Java standard library documentation, please
provide a link. I've tried and failed to find any coherent documentation of
the standard classpath that anything like approaches the quality of the Python
> Your overly defensive and oppressive response does not help.
> All it (combined with similar knee-jerk responses) does is
> act to suppress any criticism leaving the impression that
> the Python docs are really great, an assertion commonly made
> here and often left unchallenged. Responses like yours
> create a force that works to maintain the status quo.
More information about the Python-list