+ 0 - 0 | § ¶supercard shell essentials wiki
DCS has been working away on the supercard shell essentials wiki I've added the last five items on the supercard shell essentials RSS Feed to the sidebar here.I've not managed to add much to the wiki, but quoting it here might be useful.
+ 0 - 0 | § ¶SuperCard List thoughts
I've been thinking a bit about posting to the list and getting answers.I've not been posting too much recently as my eye has been off the SC ball, busy with work, but I read nearly everything.
I got into SC quite late (when version 3 was at a bargain price). As soon as I bought it I joined the list, I'd had a very positive experience with the HC list and had high expectations. These were surpassed by the generosity of the SC list members, my first question was answered quickly and kindly and I was sent an off list project to copy and play with.
I kept asking questions and getting answers. I started posting answers to simple questions and still do. I am imo pretty good on simple questions, harder ones I sometimes attempt mostly to annoy better scripters into fixing my inelegance.
I am an amateur who loves the SC list, all aspects, from watching Stéphane turn my multiline mess into an elegant one-liner to following blindly down a DCS shell worm hole special
I like trying to figure out answers to scripting problems if it doesn't require too much logic or programming. I quite like writing typo filled walk throughs or help projects (this is a great way to learn).
I am not too keen on squabbles and less keen on demands. Even the simple questions take a bit of work to answer.
unless it is a one word answer from the Language Guide any answer to the list takes a bit of time:
check the language guide
write a test script
test it
describe what it does
for a simple question this is 15 minutes work for something complex, it could be a lot longer. I've started answering a question and missed my train to work quite a few times. But it is fun, can be fascinating and gives you a warm feeling inside
Unless that is you are answered ungraciously, with complaints, or 'that is all very well but I don't want to have to paste your script I want SC to do this in one command', those sorts of replies kill the warm happy stuff pretty quick. A few of those and I stop answering that person (I am sometimes still intrigued by a problem, solve it and don't post
).You cannot expect someone who provides an answer to provide a detailed explanation of the math, trig, shell, perl etc that goes into that solution, it takes too long. Several external writers have stated that it takes longer to write the documentation than it does the external, you need to do a wee bit of work by yourself or just use the solution.
My first question to the list was about providing a popup color selector palette. Some one sent me theirs, with instructions how to use it. Not a full explanation, but I could use it, I did. Later I slowly took the scripts and window apart, figured out the scripting and now can do it myself.
From my point of view I am most likely to spend time on a question when it is interesting, clearly stated without politics, within my ability. Quick: 'I can't find this in the language guide', or 'I forgotten where this is' are ok in my book too unless they become a habitual avoidance of a few minutes research.
It is also nice to read that the questioner has tried/used your solution, if someone spends half an hour finding you a solution, you should have the politeness to try it out and report back.
Over the few years I've been posting, I have been foolish, rude and mistaken, posted in haste and posted a few unreadable mails. But I try to keep that to a minimum, cause who knows, maybe I'll be lucky enough to be in a position to earn money from SC and really need an answer.