inhouse vs outside doc (RE: Good/bad docs)

[Dan Roberts <DRoberts -at- ISOGON -dot- COM>]

I've started to wonder this myself.

In-house writers often have to struggle with getting code and
information from programmers, getting it through reviews, getting it
published (sometimes under difficult situations with less than optimum
tools), and published in hand the same day the software is available.
OTOH, the inhouse writer does have access to the code and programmers
before the software is released, and does have advantage of a company
full of experience.

I've never done an outside software doc, so I have no idea what hoops an
outside writer might have to jump through, but I'm sure there are some.
And I'm sure there are advantages also.

So, I'm curious about the comparisons between the two:
* Do the constraints and difficulties experienced by both cancel each
other out, so that we're back to a level playing field?
* Do the advantages tend to cancel each other out, so that we're back to
a level playing field?
* If we're back to a level playing field, then how is it that folks tend
to turn to outside doc to help them with a program, rather than the
inhouse doc? What does the outside doc do that we inhouse writers should
be doing?

I've not formulated my questions very clearly, but I'm curious about how
other folks see the inhouse/outside comparison.

Dan Roberts
droberts -at- isogon -dot- com

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Christy [mailto:kkchristy -at- YAHOO -dot- COM]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 12:37 PM
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject: Re: Good/bad docs


Really good documentation seems to me to be a third-party product, for
the most part.  If there's a software package I want to either master
or learn as quickly as possible, I go find a good book on it.  They
are consistently better than the in-house docs.


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=