First, this doesn't have really anything to do with whether Guyon is an expert not. He is a newer user of Construct so you could argue that he is not an expert (no offense to Guyon meant .
I didn't isolate that to him being an expert. I said that he already knows how to use the product and maybe at an expert level, and that would be a big reason as to why a person in that position wouldn't be much concerned with comprehensive tutorials and instructional manuals. If you already know what you're doing, you're not spending any time reading manuals.
Were we not all new users at some point? How do you think Guyon gained his experience? He didn't magically become skilled in Construct one day and he didn't have somebody spoon feed him all the answers. He worked hard and learned how to use the tool.
Yes that's true, but that's beside the main issue which is lack of adequate instruction. It's very commonplace for these types of things to have better documentation that can be learned from. The reason for it is pretty simple really... it's just not the best idea to expect people to learn without it. A lot of the people here are smarter than they probably give themselves credit for, so they think the rest of the world can do what they're doing with the same amount of effort (I get that feeling from your post as well), but this is not the case at all. I know some very good C coders who gave up on MMF back when it didn't have much instruction, and have given up on trying to learn Construct for the same reason. So if those types would give up, consider what the average guy who has never made a game or has no programming discipline is doing when they keep getting stuck in Construct?
I code in C myself, mostly C# (had to learn through instruction), but in order for me to learn MMF I had to get the resources and learn through instruction just the same. For MMF, they have books and guides and instructions. I read those, I learned it. Then when moving over to Construct the concept of event-based programming made sense because of what I learned in MMF. But, if it weren't for what I learned through MMF's instructional resources, it would've taken me much, MUCH longer to pick it up and I probably wouldn't have started using Construct.
The best resource for Construct right now is the search function, but that at the same time also creates its own issue as I've pointed out in a previous post.
We can all agree that more wiki documentation needs to be added. Since you seem passionate about this issue why don't you then do something to contribute? It doesn't take an expert to document a behavior, object, expression, etc.. I have added several wiki entries (within two months of finding Construct) not even knowing about how the object worked before I first started out. I scanned the forums, tried out examples, built my own examples, and just experimented with what the object did. I then added an entry and even examples in many cases. You and any other Construct user could do the same.
I may do that, but it's not my responsibility or any end-users responsibility. It's something done out of courtesy from an end-user standpoint. But if the same courtesy approach is used from those who actually create a program, it really doesn't make logical sense. Good instructions are just something that should never be looked at as totally separate from the development of development software, because you can never assume how well end-users will pick up on what you've developed. The search engine gives definitive evidence of there being an issue, so I don't think there is a valid argument against that. At this point you have 2 situations:
1. Wait for end users to contribute enough to the resource to eliminate the issue, which is more than likely not going to happen.
2. Write it as a first-party, which would be the most realistic step to eliminating the issue.
This is a simple situation. How many of us here can fix bugs and write improvements to Construct code? Maybe 1-3. Ok, how many can add wiki entries? At least 100 - 200 users. So why have one of the only guys who can improve Construct waste time writing documentation when a couple hundred would do that job instead?
We'll have to agree to disagree that it would be "wasting time". Having comprehensive instructions--something that should never be separate from the scheme anyway--is never a waste of time. It's necessary, very much so. And it can be tackled by the same people if it's broken up in pieces and done over a long period time. No one is asking for them to drop everything and just write a manual only, as there are certainly more rational ways to go about it. I should also point out that the people who created MMF also wrote books and resources on it in their spare time. It just comes down to how a developer views this aspect and how they're willing to allot time to tackling it. If a developer chooses not to make instruction an important priority, that doesn't in any way negate the importance or necessity of instruction... it just means the developer hasn't made instruction an imporant priority... nothing more than that, really.
Construct is not C#. C# is a language standard that has had millions of dollars and hundreds of people working behind. You can't even begin to compare Construct (a free and community project) to a large language. We could hire a technical writer and
solve all the documentation problems if that were so.
See my previous response.