Documentation by [insert doc type]

One of my favorite type math jokes are the often sited proof by … (search for “proof by”) jokes. The reason why I find them especially funny is that they often strike earily close to real world examples.

I’ve recently pondered that a similar structure governs software API documentation. So without further ado I bring you the Documentation by … list:

  • Mailing list discussion – You point users to a highly technical, multi-threaded, mailing list discussion that was held on a public mailing list several years ago
  • IRC log – The project does not contain any documentation. If you track down the maintainer he/she will point you to an age old IRC log
  • Intimidation – The README states “The API is pretty obvious so no documentation should be needed”
  • Lazy programming – If you punk a developer via mail or IRC there is a slim (and slightly increased) chance that he/she might add a section about you questions to the docs
  • Binary blob – If you just stick in a binary blob you don’t have to document it. Everybody knows that
  • Incomplete wiki – No documentation as such, but users and contributors are encouraged to put their experiences on the projects wiki
  • Empty autogenerated docs – When you compile the doc target you get nice html pages naming all methods of the library, but no written documentation abou the methods. This is the javadoc classic
  • Self documenting code – It should be pretty obvious how this documentation style works
  • Example – Put in one example that covers approximately 5% of the API
  • Broken link – Somewhere in a readme you put a link to a long dead webserver which supposedly contained some documentation. Maybe the wayback engine has it?
  • Multi volume novel – Write several hundred pages of textual documentation with figures and graphs. However do not include a browsable API overview or any structured presentation of the API
  • Bloogle - In between the sporadic rants on the developers blog you will find the documentation. The API consumers must use Google to find it.
  • Your favorite – Not seeing your favorite documentation style here? Please add it in the comments

Update: I missed one glaringly obvious doc type. The documentation by “Bloogle” (second last on the list).

Tags: , ,

3 Responses to “Documentation by [insert doc type]”

  1. Diego Flameeyes Pettenò Says:

    xine’s documentation is certainly multi volume novel! And is the one thing I like less of it…
    Speaking of which I should be returning to hack on it :P

  2. Gustavo Carneiro Says:

    There’s also documentation by commit log messages. Example:

    http://waf.gforge.punktart.de/changeset/2970

    :-)

  3. wingo Says:

    Bloogle was the best of a cackle-filled lot. Nice!

Leave a Reply