Contrived Example

В другой статье Joel пишет, что документированный исходник лучше недокументированного, и приводит исключительно дурацкий пример-доказательство. После примера:

The moral of the story is that with a contrived example, you can prove anything. Oops. No, that’s not what I meant to say. The moral of the story is that when you design your product in a human language, it only takes a few minutes...

Update: Пойдите почитайте, очень смешно:

When you don’t have a spec, what happens with the poor technical writers is the funniest (in a sad kind of way). Tech writers often don’t have the political clout to interrupt programmers. In many companies, if tech writers get in the habit of interrupting programmers to ask how something is supposed to work, the programmers go to their managers and cry about how they can’t get any work done because of these [expletive deleted] writers, and could they please keep them away, and the managers, trying to improve productivity, forbid the tech writers to waste any more of their precious programmers’ time. You can always tell these companies, because the help files and the manuals don’t give you any more information than you can figure out from the screen. When you see a message on a screen which says

Would you like to enable LRF-1914 support?

... and you click «Help», a tragicomic help topic comes up which says something like

Allows you to choose between LRF-1914 support (default) or no LRF-1914 support. If you want LRF-1914 support, choose «Yes» or press «Y». If you don’t want LRF-1914 support, choose «No» or press «N».