<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Documentation on Hillel Wayne</title>
    <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/tags/documentation/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Documentation on Hillel Wayne</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    
	<atom:link href="https://www.hillelwayne.com/tags/documentation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    
    
    <item>
      <title>My Problem With the Four-Document Model</title>
      <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/problems-with-the-4doc-model/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/problems-with-the-4doc-model/</guid>
      <description>Two universal facts about user documentation:
 Documentation is really important. We are really bad at writing it.  We don&amp;rsquo;t have good theories on what makes for useful documentation. That is except for the four document model, or Diátaxis.1 I&amp;rsquo;m glad that people use it. I&amp;rsquo;m also a little frustrated that people use it even when its inappropriate. My problem is that it&amp;rsquo;s not a universal or comprehensive model: there&amp;rsquo;s a lot of documentation people need to write that doesn&amp;rsquo;t neatly fit the model.</description>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Announcing: Alloydocs</title>
      <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/alloydocs/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/alloydocs/</guid>
      <description>tl;dr: online Alloy reference here.
If you&amp;rsquo;ve read this blog at all you probably know I&amp;rsquo;m a big fan of Alloy. It&amp;rsquo;s a simple, powerful formal method whose entire syntax fits in just two pages. You can learn it in a day and be productive in two. And it can be used to model everything from package management to database migrations to authorization systems.
Two years ago I was invited to the Workshop on the Future of Alloy.</description>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Maybe Comments SHOULD Explain &#39;What&#39;</title>
      <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/what-comments/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:40:32 -0600</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/what-comments/</guid>
      <description>People say &amp;ldquo;Comments should explain why, not what.&amp;rdquo; I feel like starting a flame war today so I&amp;rsquo;m going to argue that comments should explain &amp;lsquo;what&amp;rsquo; too. Please don&amp;rsquo;t use this as justification to write bad code, okay? Okay.
First of all, why shouldn&amp;rsquo;t comments explain &amp;lsquo;what&amp;rsquo;? If you need comments to explain what&amp;rsquo;s going on, it suggests your code is unclear. If I write
//weight, radius, price w = 10, r = 9, p = 1  That&amp;rsquo;s not as clear as saying</description>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Doctests in Python</title>
      <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/python-doctests/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/python-doctests/</guid>
      <description>Doctests are one of the most fascinating things in Python. Not necessarily because it&amp;rsquo;s particularly elegant or useful, but because it&amp;rsquo;s unique: I haven&amp;rsquo;t found another language that has a similar kind of feature.
Here&amp;rsquo;s how it works. Imagine I was writing an adder:
def add(a,b): return a + b  There&amp;rsquo;s two kinds of ways we can test it. The first is with unit tests, which everybody&amp;rsquo;s already used to.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>