Right: Some people here at Hacker News like to attack others that don't fit in with some of the norms. Mere technical discussions are not always welcome.
My background is quite different, is with people who can engage in technical communications with objectivity.
Yup, you are right: Some people at Hacker News have trouble being objective. To interact with them, be like a politician who is careful never to say much of anything except they like motherhood and apple pie.
In part my goal was to let Microsoft and much of the tech community know that they very much need to improve their technical writing. Microsoft has made a lot of improvements, but for their Dev Kit they fell back into poor writing again. One rule that would help a lot would be to avoid undefined or poorly defined jargon, terminology, or acronyms.
Your arguments about URLs fails to make a valid point: There are a lot of URLs about the Dev Kit, and the ones you mentioned and their sources are not necessarily where I got the URLs I followed. So, your claim that I ignored good URLs that were right in front of me was wrong: The sources you mentioned were not the ones I happened to use.
I'm 100% correct: Some of the Microsoft publicity, promotion, and documentation of their Dev Kit has some really obscure technical writing that can waste a lot of time for people without a quite narrow background. For making this point, you have attacked ME. Hmm ....
My background is quite different, is with people who can engage in technical communications with objectivity.
Yup, you are right: Some people at Hacker News have trouble being objective. To interact with them, be like a politician who is careful never to say much of anything except they like motherhood and apple pie.
In part my goal was to let Microsoft and much of the tech community know that they very much need to improve their technical writing. Microsoft has made a lot of improvements, but for their Dev Kit they fell back into poor writing again. One rule that would help a lot would be to avoid undefined or poorly defined jargon, terminology, or acronyms.
Your arguments about URLs fails to make a valid point: There are a lot of URLs about the Dev Kit, and the ones you mentioned and their sources are not necessarily where I got the URLs I followed. So, your claim that I ignored good URLs that were right in front of me was wrong: The sources you mentioned were not the ones I happened to use.
I'm 100% correct: Some of the Microsoft publicity, promotion, and documentation of their Dev Kit has some really obscure technical writing that can waste a lot of time for people without a quite narrow background. For making this point, you have attacked ME. Hmm ....