Live data from Hacker News

On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

caseyliss.com

11–20 of 348 posts

Re: On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

#11
Having run into something similar just recently [0], having any documentation is still (slightly) better than no documentation at all. As a stark example, macOS has a built-in sandboxing CLI tool called sandbox-exec (originally called Seatbelt), but the man page simply says it's deprecated, as far back as I could find them. Mind you, the same tool is used heavily by macOS internally, and has been around ever since Leopard [1]. Some of the best documentation is by engineers at Google, Mozilla, and others, who have just reverse engineered the thing.

[0] https://www.karltarvas.com/2020/10/25/macos-app-sandboxing-v...

[1] https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox...

Re: On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

#12
post #7

Has anyone else noticed that Apple has been slowly moving away from the long-form guides that were helpful at explaining core concepts? I remember once seeing a comprehensive guide on code signing, but over the years it appears to have been scrubbed from their documentation resources. In its place is a much less helpful (but prettier-looking) guide. In comparison, I've noticed Android has FANTASTIC developer document…

My guess is they’re realized documentation is a huge cost center and even their own technical writers are overburdened by the churn of deprecating APIs and changing best practices. It’s worse then the JavaScript community.

Re: On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

#13
I don’t personally have much experience with Apple’s documentation in particular, but as a general topic, increasing the quality of documentation seems to be one of the least complicated ways to improve a platform. For all the complaints people have about how hype-oriented the frontend web world can be at times, it seems clear to me that there’s usually some correlation between hype factor and simple examples/clear documentation, and that this excitement can make people move to a new technology much faster. It’s really hard to understand why Apple wouldn’t spend the necessary resources to bring developers along at a faster pace.

Re: On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

#14
post #7

Has anyone else noticed that Apple has been slowly moving away from the long-form guides that were helpful at explaining core concepts? I remember once seeing a comprehensive guide on code signing, but over the years it appears to have been scrubbed from their documentation resources. In its place is a much less helpful (but prettier-looking) guide. In comparison, I've noticed Android has FANTASTIC developer document…

This. Their documentation on CoreAnimation concepts was wonderful [1]. It even has these little appendix sections discussing advanced use-cases.

Sadly, they seem to have stopped writing these at around 2015...

[1] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Co...

Re: On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

#15
Honestly, reading the headers is the only way to understand iOS, macOS, and iPadOS properly.

I find that the older I get, the more _code is my documentation._ Particularly for things like Python's matplotlib, once you do more than put lines or scatter plots together, you _have_ to understand how the code actually works.

Of course, that's difficult when all you get is header files, but still...

Re: On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

#16
I've been a technical writer for ~8 years (3 at a startup, 5 at Gooble). I don't know Apple's situation but here's my guess:

> Is the documentation team too small? (Likely.)

Documentation is weird because there seems to be widespread agreement among developers about how lacking it is (and conversely I think it's safe to say how important it is for job success) yet technical writing is almost always understaffed, no matter what size company you have. Part of it is that it's really hard to show a causal link between the docs we create and developer success. I know it seems silly but that's why I've been advocating for getting those little "was this page helpful?" links at the bottom of pages, followed by an opportunity to provide freeform feedback. If developers started using those consistently and leaving testimony about how the docs helped them it would be a lot easier to prove the value of docs. This is especially true when you operate at a big, platform-level scale, as is the case on https://web.dev (what I work on) and these Apple API docs. Pageviews give us a rough idea of the demand for certain ideas but don't tell us anything about whether our docs are actually useful.

(As an aside, in some situations it's easier to justify the technical writing team's existence; e.g. your technical writer specifically creates docs in response to support requests and the support team is able to just link customers to the docs rather than re-answering the same question over and over; or you have access to "customer's" code and are able to show that they are following the best practices / use cases you mention and avoid anti-patterns you warn about)

I'll leave with a suggestion because I don't have a horse in this race. If this situation is so bad; your best option might be to create a community-managed MDN-style resource for the Apple ecosystem. I would suggest focusing it on 1) API reference documentation and 2) examples (MDN puts the examples within the API reference pages, that would probably work here).

Another route could be more of what these people are already doing: make a lot of noise until Apple realizes how bad the situation is. I imagine if you can prove that you're leaving their platform because the situation is so bad, that might wake them up.

(No disrespect to Apple people; I know how tough this situation is; just trying to provide constructive feedback for the broader community)

Re: On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

#17
post #7

Has anyone else noticed that Apple has been slowly moving away from the long-form guides that were helpful at explaining core concepts? I remember once seeing a comprehensive guide on code signing, but over the years it appears to have been scrubbed from their documentation resources. In its place is a much less helpful (but prettier-looking) guide. In comparison, I've noticed Android has FANTASTIC developer document…

I'm curious who maintains the Android docs. Is it all open source? Is any of Apples?

Re: On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

#18
post #7

Has anyone else noticed that Apple has been slowly moving away from the long-form guides that were helpful at explaining core concepts? I remember once seeing a comprehensive guide on code signing, but over the years it appears to have been scrubbed from their documentation resources. In its place is a much less helpful (but prettier-looking) guide. In comparison, I've noticed Android has FANTASTIC developer document…

The long form guides are great, but for much of SwiftUI they're even missing the most basic 3-line summary of what a thing is.

I so often need to do a simple thing, find a function that looks about right, and the documentation for it says literally nothing about how to use it.

Re: On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

#19
post #13

I don’t personally have much experience with Apple’s documentation in particular, but as a general topic, increasing the quality of documentation seems to be one of the least complicated ways to improve a platform. For all the complaints people have about how hype-oriented the frontend web world can be at times, it seems clear to me that there’s usually some correlation between hype factor and simple examples/clear d…

I am 100% convinced that Stripe's success is at least partly due to their attention to documentation and design. Their documentation and knowledge base should be used in case studies on how to succeed as a saas.

Re: On Apple's Piss-Poor Documentation

#20

I have been trying to optimize a initContainer written in NodeJS and one of the experiment I am trying out is to rewrite it in .NET Core and Microsoft's documentation has been pretty good - it is clear, well organized, gives you examples for each API and there are how-tos for things that people typically care about - the architecture docs linked from here for e.g. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/ API docs exa…

Microsoft has put lots of effort into their docs in the past couple years, and it's pretty great.

Under the "Version" dropdown you can flip to see the same docs in a specific version or platform (Framework vs Core), and this is pretty helpful for porting/upgrading code, as well as coming from a Google search or Stack Overflow link -- you can easily get to the docs for the version you're working with.

The other great thing they've done is published all the .NET code on https://source.dot.net, so you can dive into the code for ConcurrentQueue [1] for example. I sometimes find looking at the source is a faster way to answer a specific question about how something works vs reading through several pages of documentation, where the nuance I care about is noted in a "Remarks" section which is easily missed.

[1] https://source.dot.net/#System.Private.CoreLib/ConcurrentQue...

Post reply on HN