> (1) .chm format is better for the windows distro than the .html format Speak for yourself. I prefer the HTML that I can view in a browser of my choice any time over MS's clumsy help browser. > And some afterthoughts on Tim's tagline, which in my ignorance I > interpreted as indicative of a somewhat reactive attitude to the > win32 distro [I'd be utterly delighted to be corrected if I'm > wrong]: You're wrong. > (1) Judging from the traffic on c.l.py, > Python seems to have reached the point in a > language's life cycle where it is attracting many novice users. Tell us something we don't know. > My guess is that most of those will be using the win32 > distribution. Many of them will no doubt refuse to RTFM, but for > those who will, providing them with the docs in .chm format (and > actively promoting it) might cut down on the "support cost" of the > traffic on c.l.py. I strongly doubt that the *format* we use to provide the docs makes much of a difference. > (2) In two application development shops with which I am engaged, > the main application runs on a large Unix box, but the developers' > and DBAs' workstations are Windows (2000) PCs -- is this atypical? I've never seen it, but I suppose I'm atypical. :-) > I am evangelising Python to them -- while certainly not critical, > better doc formats, positive attitude to win32 distro, etc etc > wouldn't hurt. Stop complaining and do something about it. If you think Tim's got an negative attitude about win32 distro, I think you need a reality adjustment. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4