Is the scripting wiki helpful to you?

Again well-put Chosen. We surely would hope for more out of a reference manual that a basic "dictionary" of terms.

And you're right, in no way would the work be "diminished" by implementing some much needed changes. It would be improved.

Someone has mentioned there is no way the work could serve the needs of both techs and newbies. Thousands of excellent user reference manuals would prove that statement incorrect.

It is entirely possible-- if the right people are involved-- to create a user manual, reference manual and tech manual in one tome... and for the syntax pages to adequately serve all three goals. I'm not sure anyone is going to allow the current LsL Wiki to become that work... but such manuals do exist throughout the computer field-- written by competent writers who understand both tech and people and know how to bridge that gap.

Argent said he spends a lot of his time correcting unfactual user manuals. Yes, that happens... much as I spent a portion of my career cleaning up tech manuals that couldn't be understood by their intended audience. Bad writers exist on both sides of the fence. That doesn't mean it can't be done right, all the way around, in a way beneficial to the vast majority of readers. But to get there, people are going to have to stop being so dang stubborn about what THEY prefer and stop being so opinionated (such as "laughing" at industry standard nomenclature)... and be willing to bend a little for the benefit of the greater majority.

I agree a 1-10 rating would have sufficed. But I can't agree it's a slanted poll. In fact, it seems a very well-thought out poll, presenting the most often voiced opinions (I suspect taken right from the forum debate itself). 7 out of 10 answer's aren't "negative" from what I can see. Three are positive, three are negative and the other four somewhere in between... which is how it should be.

I think the major conceptual flaw was as Chaz himself said, making it multiple choice rather than asking users to choose the one option that best suits their position. If it had been a single choice, we could have far better seen opinion distribution. But I note that as of this posting, the for/against crowd are pretty close to neck in neck. But I'm pretty sure that if I were to go to three large groups that I hang around and ask them to come to that page and vote as they feel, we'd see a sudden and major surge in the "dislikes the Wiki" vote.

I haven't done that because I don't really think that poll is all that important or valid. Why? Because the facts are already established. It's quite apparent from everyday SL use that those who dislike the LsL Wiki vastly outnumber those who like it. I think the main reason Chaz put that vote there was to make that exact point. The techs were claiming that no competent programmer would want to use another format than presented in the LsL Wiki... a sentiment with which many competent programmers strongly disagree.

Yeah. Creating surveys is an actual skill set, one I don't have. So I just took, like Eren said, the most often voiced opinions, with the "I'll just marry a scripter" thrown in for a bit of comic relief (not that that isn't a route many choose, haha.)

OK I have a couple of earnest questions here.

I read a mention of a wiki called RPGSTATS:
http://rpgstats.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

I don't know why I'd never heard of RPGstats before (some things just slip through the cracks), but I visited the page tonight.

On visiting this Wiki, imo in general it was well-written, sensibly designed, better formatted and less confusing. There is of course room for improvement; but generally it just seemed better written and better organized.

The definitions seem to be well-worded, it's more informative, easier to use. No insult intended to Strife and others; imo it's simply a better presentation. Admittedly I haven't had time to fully examine it, but from what I've seen it's a good step in the right direction.

So my earnest questions:
Why are there three different Wikis that are all very similar in nature?

Why aren't people consolodating their efforts? Is there some kind of ego thing going on or is it something else?

Why, with the existence of RPGstats, does anyone really continue to care about and work on the LsL Wiki?

I trust there are valid reasons for these things and good answers to these questions. Seems to me that of the three Wiki's, RPGstats is the one that is the best written. So it also seems the community would be better served in focusing its attention on the best of the three boards rather than dividing its attention between the best and two lesser efforts. Of course some may disagree as to what is the best of the three; that's what I'm wondering about.

I don't know anything about the origins, maintenance or current status of the other two boards, so I'm not inferring or pointing any fingers. I simply want to know what's up with all that?

So you do know that Strife, the one you have repeatedly asked to step down from the wiki, the one that you have repeatedly insulted and said you were not insulting, was one of the major contributors in that wiki also right?

From the poll and all of my encounters in SL I still do not see where you are coming up with the 99.9% of the users hate the wiki or "It's quite apparent from everyday SL use that those who dislike the LsL Wiki vastly outnumber those who like it". Please point us to the source of these numbers. I have been here everyday for the last couple of years answering questions about scripting and I have not seen that.

I also see you have completely sidestepped the issue that your anti-tech post was clearly designed to inflame and insult or that your reply to me was designed as an insult. But then again you will not address that. So before calling me a troll one more time I will ask the question one more time. Links to your wiki edits please?

Create the manual, no one is stopping you. You can add pages and sections to the wiki. Start with one titled "How to write a script" or "Anatomy of a script". I have pointed this out to you before or that you can even start your own wiki. It should not be a problem for you because you have repeatedly stated that this is your field of expertise. It does not have to be done all at once. Add a page here and there. It will not cost anything to do it except for time. The same time that Strife has contributed that you say is wasted.

We can continue to improve the dictionary part of the wiki. But leave the basic structure the same and instead add totally new sections if you believe this will help. Just no more calls for Strife to stop the work he is doing and for LL instead to hire a tech writer. No more bitching about the bad job and with the same breath state that you will not contribute your time because LL is not paying you. Write the manual, if it is well written then it will be well received. Make the sacrifice in personal time that the rest of us make here in the forums everyday.

Not just you, but the same applies to anyone. You can add your own user pages to the wiki. I create example scripts there for people to learn from. The material is used and referenced. I have the rare honor of having a personal page with nearly 18,000 hits, which is more then the number of hits on some llFunction pages. A page that shows how to easily make a 3D radar. Show us what you can do instead of saying everyone else is doing it wrong. Step up or sit down and shut up, simple choice.

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Jesse_Barnett

I totally agree with Chosen's suggestions, which perspective he generously applies to his own technical support posts: I sometimes feel I could probably run Maya out of the box thanks to his detailed explanations.

The lack of a formal background in scripting means that however much advice I read in the Scripting Tips Forum, I am almost always entirely at a loss to make sense of them. Worse still, I sometimes post there in the sad hope that some kind soul will take pity and bang out a clean example for me in between the PHP tags.

It would be extremely helpful to have a no-nonsense resource that assumes I am a complete scripting idiot from start to finish because that is what I am. Despite my eagerness to learn, there appears to be a huge gulf of assumed knowledge that makes it virtually impossible for me to develop scripting skills.

I see how you have to read a whole page of text to get two lines worth of reference information, and a lot of unrelated information (some of it arguably wrong) on the same page. I have a number of books like this, that I have accumulated over the years, and they're useless as references... because you have to flip through page after page of discursive text that could be summarized in 1/10th the space, and you miss the tag you're looking for because it wasn't sitting there lined up with the rest.

The wiki is a wiki. It's hypertext. The user's guide doesn't need to be in the reference manual.

It's not. The syntax of llSetColor does not have "<" or ">" anywhere in it. It takes a vector. The syntax of a vector constant contains "<" and ">", but the vector in llSetColor does not have to be supplied as a constant.

If llSetColor syntax was described that way, sure as Jobs made little Apples I would find myself having to explain to some newchum that you didn't actually need to provide a vector constant there. I'm absolutely sure that I would end up seeing people write this:

llSetColor(<color.x, color.y, color.z>, side); // or worse

That is not a description of the syntax, it's an example.

And, yes, I've had to correct that kind of misreading of "user friendly" reference manuals hundreds of times over the years. I had one salesman SCREAM at me in front of a customer, once, because I described a packet-filtering router as a "router" instead of a "firewall" because the manufacturer put the word "firewall" and not "router" on the box and in the manual.

What about something like this:

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

Thanks to its structure and content, just about anyone can make a start on CSS using this reference and it is just as valuable for professionals who know the subject well but occasionally need to check a detail of the standard.

I, for one, am motivated by all this to create more (better) example usage in the wiki. Can anyone point out a few pages that really need better examples? I will pitch in to help.

I wasn't at all offended or insulted. Instead, I was simply pointing out the vast inconsistencies in your two statements. You're obviously frothing mad but don't seem to be able to admit it.

Sorry - just trying to help.

hey Sindy just noticed this under your name:

"Will script for shoes"

I am *so* going to be sending peeps your way; I get asked about that so often (and I don't have time to take it on.)

LOL.. It's not about scripting shoes, it's about scripting to keep the shoe-buying money coming in. An admitedly cheesy joke on "will work for food" - I don't actually (usually) script for cash..

And this is the difference Argent, between a tech analysis of a user manual and a real-world analysis. Because if you believe <> is not part of the syntax of the llSetColor function... please try leaving it out.

Now I know as "proof" someone might try submitting:
llSetColor(color_variable,face_variable);

... but that's not really valid is it? Because somewhere in that code, the variables have to be set... and those variables WILL contain the <>.

But you do bring us to a point that hit me just this morning... the conceptual differnce between a SYNTAX line and a DEFINITION line. Because the purpose of a syntax line is to show the absolute, required layout of a function. By that concept:

llSetColor(vector color,integer face);

is not a syntax line. It is a CONCEPT declaration line, which is why it is so confusing to new users. It pretends to be a syntax line... but it's not.

According to industry conceptual syntax, an absolute, technical, TRUE syntax line would be:

llSetColor(<fVar1,fVar2,fVar3>,iVar>;

Now while that may not be the BEST way to show it, I guarantee that will serve the purpose, especially if followed up with the industry standard DEFINITION section. Example:

llSetColor(<fVar1,fVar2,fVar3>,iVar>;
Definition: Alters the color of one or more sides of a prim.
where
fVar1 = Red value of an RGB vector, ranging from 0 (black) to 1 (white)
fvar2 = Green value of an RGB vector, ranging from 0 (black) to 1 (white)
fvar3 = Blue value of an RGB vector, ranging from 0 (black) to 1 (white)
iVar = Side of the prim, or ALL_SIDES to change all the sides.

The above is the difference between a true syntax statement, and a moddled concept of a true syntax statement. Yes, the <> are included because they are a necessary part of that syntax statement (unless of course, a vector variable is used instead, but we are not in this function defining the application of vector variables (that's a different subject entirely)... we are defining the syntax of the llSetColor function.

Now, let's say someone is just really, really insistant that no, this isn't a <r,g,b> sytnax it is a VECTOR daggnabbit... well then we treat it as a vector and use industry standard symbolism for that...

llSetColor(vector,integer);

And we don't confuse and muck up the syntax line with a definition. We define the syntax line AFTER the syntax line.

This is possibly why the Wiki is so confusing to so many people. I can't say it doesn't conform to industry standard formats... because there are a LOT of industry standard formats out there... some of them good, some of them really bad. All I'm saying here is that the current format of the LsLWiki is not user friendly. It doesn't follow the way that people THINK... it follows the way some tech in some back room thinks they should think. So instead of a nice, clean syntax line such as

llSetColor(vector,integer);
we wind up with
llSetColor(vector color,integer face);

Now some may argue hey, putting the word "color" in there helps explain what the vector is for. Uh... but according to previous arguments in this very forum... it's not really a "color" is it? (Remember the people who argued it's not red, green and blue? Wow, those arguements can turn and bite you in the tail, can't they?). By that arguement, since other concepts can be used to influence and alter the purpose of the llSetColor fucntion, then even the use of the word COLOR really has no significance to this statement, does it?

Well if I may, that's just silly. LOL. Again folks, this function has a specific purpose, and that purpose is to SET THE COLOR OF A PRIM... no matter how some individual coder may distort or alter that function.

So by that fact of purpose, Any of the following lines are a proper, reasily-readable, industry-standard SYNTAX line:

llSetColor(vector,integer);

llSetColor(<fRed,fGreen,fBlue>,iSide);

llSetColor(<red,green,blue>,side); (followed up by a variable type definition)

What is (arguably) NOT a true "syntax" line is:

llSetColor(vector color, integer face);

That strikes people as muddled, confusing and not understandable as a syntax line... because (and I know some may disagree) it isn't technically a syntax line. It's an attempt (and imo a bad one) at a definition line.

llSetColor(llGetColor(0), ALL_SIDES);

Jesse your statement about Strife contributing to the RBGstats wiki is noted. But I think it's fairly obvious he isn't in control of that wiki nor did he design it. If that is not the case, then the question I would have to ask: what in the world went wrong between that wiki, and the LsL Wiki, that the LsL Wiki is in such state and the RGBstat wiki is so much more pleasant to use?

Now, while it must be unfortunate to be so emotionally upset at ever piddly little thing someone posts on a forum to your disliking (and I hope that eventually you do learn to chill out a bit)... so that this is understood: in reading your future posts here, the first whiff I get of rant or emo, I'm just going to just ignore the entire remainder of that post. So you can feel free to discuss these things sensibly, or you can troll and insult and get personal and rant all you wish... your choice. If it's sensible discussion, I'll read it. If it's ranting or a personal attack, I will ignore everything after the first rant line and consign it to the "wastebasket area" where such things belong. So it's really your choice how you conduct yourself on these forums, just as it's mine to ignore whatever valid points you might possibly make within the context of such attitude.

No questions answered?

I have a long history here with one heck of a lot of posts. I have no problem discussing anything in a calm, reasonable manner with most people. But if I do insult someone, I don't try to hide or deny it.

Jesse, the point is: why would you feel the NEED to insult someone... or to try to judge the intent of other people in their posts? One thing about your "not trying to hide" your attitude... it that there's no questioning your intent. You're TRYING to be abusive... which frankly is against the TOS of these forums.

No, no questions answered Jesse... because your post did not warrant the respect of answering your quesitons. Change the attitude, I'll change my response to such attitude. When you troll... you get the zero-respect and zero-response such posts deserve.

(Reposted to a thread of its own.)

vector c;
c.x = 1;
c.y = llFrand(1);
c.z = 0.5;
llSetColor(c, ALL_SIDES);

Jeez you are a hard headed one Erin. Are you really denying that you have insulted multiple people, multiple times in both of these threads. Do I need to quote them? I am not the only one that has pointed it out to you. Once again as I previously pointed out you have used the word "troll", but no you are not insulting people.
If you do not wish to continue hearing from me then quit responding, it is that simple. You have stated many times that you were leaving the other thread but did not. I do not believe for one second that you will ignore this post either.

// Put this in a HUD prim and fly around any sim.
default() {
state_entry() { llSetTimerEvent(1.0); }
timer() { llSetColor(llGetPos()/256.0, ALL_SIDES); }
}

ok, llSetColor takes a type vector and a type integer as arguments. You are claiming that "<", and ">", are part of a vector, in reality they are not, a vector is just an object/struct of 3 floating values, x, y, and z. There is no part in there that uses < or >. What LL has done, is to overload (redifine) the = sign for that object. So when you say vector c = <1, 1, 1>; the compiler looks at that and creates an object of the type vector, then it see's the = sign, so now it knows it has to assign something to the x, y and z values. Then for READABILITY, the < is used to tell the compiler, the numbers after this are to be assigned to the vector object. More specifically to the x... there the , after the x tells the compileer to assign the next number to the y.. etc until it reaches the > which indicates, this is the end of the overloaded operator =.

If LSL was OOP, they could have easily made a function called: CreateVector(float x, float y, float z), and left it to us to use that instead of giving us the quick visual reference of < and >.

vector c.CreateVector(1, 1, 1);

I think you are getting caught up in the visual easy reference LL put in to the assignment of a vector for readability for the end user. Since < and > are common math form of a vector, They could have easily made it $1, 1, 1$.

Congrats Ultralite, you actually succeeded in avoiding using the <>. And I'll grant that's a valid example. So what that brings us down to in the end game, as absolute syntax, if we are going to use pure variable types as the defining syntax:

llSetColor(vector,integer);

However, (and I know this is just a matter of viewpoint... one writer seeing it one way, one writer seeing it another way)... it's not the purpose of the llSetColor function to define the use of vector variables. While absolutely technically this may be correct.. that doesn't necessarly mean it's BEST. (It could be however... at least it's point-blank accurate).

That is an issue that many techs have difficulty understanding... that trying to present deep core, absolute tech to the public usually doesn't get the point across.

That's the point I was making in the last post. If it's going to be an absolute tech manual, then be absolutely tech. Don't muck up the syntax line with obscure definition verbage.

llSetColor(vector color, integer face);

while easily understandable to techs and those already well acquainted with LsL, is confusing as can be to those trying to figure out what in the world it's talking about.

llSetColor(vector,integer); is not confusing, especially if followed by a good definition section.

llSetColor(<red,green,blue>,side); is not confusing, especially if followed by a good variable definition section.

llSetColor(<fRed,fGreen,fBlue>,iSide); is not confusing. It pretty much defines both the variable type and the purpose in one line.

(And I don't really care if scripters here deride or "laugh" at that nomenclature, that form is used in useful tech manuals industry wide. The scoffs of a secluded handful of people do not erase decades of historical procedure).

So bottom line, if people want a true tech manual, make it true tech. Separate the variable types from the definition seciton, make the definition section READABLE, and make the LsL Wiki less confusing as a result. If people want to use VECTOR instead of <red,green,blue> then do so... just be consistent and logical in the application and un-muck the syntax line. (Thus the point I made earlier about simplifying syntax).

Again, for the record, I'm not trying to enforce my views on anything. Strife can handle the LsL Wiki however he wants. He asked for feedback; this is nothing more than feedback and debate of that feedback, with valid points being made on both sides.