R
Rob Fitzpatrick
Guest
I agree with Wim, Etienne, et al. Progress customers got burned by bad documentation in 10.x and earlier. If the Progress documentation for a function says, release after release, that you can use it for a use-case other than userid permission-checking then that's a valid use case, full stop. Code that implements such use cases is not "abusive". It is not code that "should not" have been written. That's just insulting. Product documentation tells you what a feature does and, hopefully, how it should or should not be used. If it tells you you can do something with a function then you can . Later versions of the documentation can't just come along later and effectively say "why did you do that, idiot?" I don't care what is said to the contrary in KB articles or in the archives of the PEG. As a customer I expect documentation to be correct and complete, every bit as much as I expect the code to be so. If I read the docs and they say "you can do x" then I take it as read that I can do x. If someone (Progress?) expects me to second-guess everything I read in the docs and verify it against other sources then (a) my productivity will plummet and (b) the docs are almost useless. Also, the PEG, wonderful as it is, is not a Progress support channel. It is unknown and invisible to many (most?) Progress customers, it is e-mail only and not searchable, and even if a given user subscribes to a channel where such discussions may happen they only see future conversations, not those in the past where, for instance, informal guidance may have been given about the "right" uses for CAN-DO. There's a lot of good stuff on the PEG. But as a medium for exchanging ideas and viewpoints, it also contains a lot of stuff that is just plain wrong (including some posts of my own).
Continue reading...
Continue reading...