'nmake' manual pages

[Earl Wallace]

In article <11570 at ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ekrell at hector.UUCP
(Eduardo Krell) writes:
>...
>Remember, Toolchest programs are totally unsupported. You're expecting
>too much from something that didn't promise anything.
>...

I agree software is definitely unsupported if it's offered thru the ToolChest.
But *support* isn't what I'm concerned about.  If the software had good
documenation and very few bugs, the user should be able to use it without
having to troubleshoot bugs, reading the manual cover to cover 3 times,
doing lots of small changes to rules and variables to see what really happens,
and still not fully understanding (and trusting) how this software works.

The port to A/UX was a simple 'MAKE' and this shouldn't have caused any of
my problems.  I didn't find anything horrible or unusual about nmake in the
bug department (lots of NULL pointers, etc.), but the lack of quality control
is quite apparent and disturbing.  I can't say that the nmake manual is a
lot worse than the standard UNIX manuals, which isn't saying much, eh?  But
getting 'nmake' up and running in such a way that it could be "trusted" to
work as I expected did eat up a hell of a lot more time on my PERT-chart
than I projected, and I really don't like taking the heat for project delays
for software that gave me the *impression* that it was ready and willing to
start work the day it arrived.  I didn't see anything in the manual or in
the ToolChest that said "If you touch any rule, variable or line of source
code, you're in a heap of muck, dude!".

Now that I have C-O-M-M-E-N-T-E-D the Makerules.mk file (80% done and learned
a lot!), I can say that nmake is really neat and can do just about anything
you could ever imagine, but by butt has lots of burn marks on it, you know?

In reference to your comment about I'm "expecting too much from something
that didn't promise anything", I'm not sure how to reply to this statement. I
think I understand that you feel that because the software was offered via the
ToolChest, that if it works at all, I shouldn't be complaining.  Well, my
company shelled out some bucks for this software and if we want our customers
to use it, we'll have to cough up another $10K or so, and we'll still have to
finish debugging it and improve the manual.  The bottom line is, supported or
unsupported, it cost us real money and therefore should come with better
documenation and less bugs than software that's free, right? If 'nmake' was
offered free, I would be much more tolerant about the quality of the software
and manual, and would have factored more time in my PERT-chart for the
debugging and lack of documenation, but charge me money for it and I do expect
higher standards.  I'm funny that way :-)

I think we need to stop setting our standards so low in the UNIX World, if
you write programs and want people to use them, then either go to their desk,
sit down and show them how it works, or write a document that they can use,
otherwise consider that your program may never be used by anyone unless it's
real simple, and you just might have wasted your time writing it.