"Documentation" hint

I have been in programming and IT for over 30 years. However, my focus has always been on the backend.

Now I was looking for a tool to support me in creating a small portal. I tested plenty of solutions and finally fell on Wappler.

From my perspective, Wappler gives flexibility that I won’t get anywhere else. However, there is a high cost for it.

The cost, of NO documentation. Because what is called “documentation”, let’s agree. It’s a rather embarrassing attempt to explain some basic concepts.

Considering that the price of Wappler, is several times higher, than a subscription to ALL JetBrains products, well, this is rather unacceptable.

However, I’m stuck here.

The idea of using low-code tools, is to create solutions much faster than full-code. Only… Without up-to-date documentation, using such an extensive product is banging your head against a wall of questions.

For anyone struggling with a similar problem, I have a hint. Use https://www.perplexity.ai/

It has indexed ‘documentation’, and forum posts. It speeds up the search for answers to questions HUGELY. Provided, of course, that there is an answer somewhere.

It is, of course, a half-measure. But one has to manage.

I know why, documentation is an issue. I have been in that place many times when you have to decide what to spend your time on. On developing the tool (needed, interesting, fun) or on creating documentation (boring, not developmental, nobody wants to do it).

However, that in Wappler, it went too far.

3 Likes

What Wappler needs is a GPT that has all forum data, and knowledge of Server Connect and App Connect code.

1 Like

Yes, I agree with @Daniel_Roziecki , due to the lack of normal documentation, sometimes you can’t even formulate an initial request or idea on how best to do something. I would like to have a brief summary of the purpose and capabilities of each element. Some are intuitive, but others leave you guessing.

2 Likes

Perplexity gives you the first part.

First of all, welcome @Daniel_Roziecki to Wappler Community.

I have to tell you my friend that I have used complicated softwares that have a very strong documentation but all I ever learned is from tutorials and from the official forums…

I believe that no matter how detailed is the documantation for a software like this, you ALWAYS have to search for a “specific” kind of problem/issue/solution you have!
AND HERE COMES THE POWER OF WAPPLER COMMUNITY

WE ALL HAVE 24/7/365 SUPPORT on what exactly we would like to achieve!!

I mean… IS THERE A BETTER DOCUMENTATION from this?

But of course I know how you feel.
There are people that are used or prefer to read the documentation instead of ask
Just spend some time to watch the video series on wappler’s youtube channel and there you go…
Then you start to become familiar with the whole wappler building scenario and it is a matter of time to build whaever you want!
Any time somebody has a question, all he has to do is drop it here and the solution will be answered in a few minutes!

Anyway, I just had to say what was my experience and my beliefs.

Here is some links of a few VERY GOOD tutorials that @Hyperbytes and @ben have made for all of us… AND WE THANK THEM SO MUCH!!

Wish you Success on whatever you do my friend!

I welcome your enthusiasm, but…

Don’t confuse the topics.

Tutorials are NOT documentation.
Community support, is even more so NOT documentation.

Both are very important and play an important role in the whole ecosystem, but they are NOT documentation.

1 Like

Hi Daniel, thank you for your input.

Documentation (or lack of) has been brought up a number of times by various contributors to this community.

In each case, the topic has been generalised, meaning that there have been no specific items where the documentation fails to deliver.

Maybe the Wappler Team (@Teodor) should consider a new category called Documentation Requests or similar. This would be a place where we, as users, can request documentation for a specific Wappler item/extension/component. This will help those that are burdened with the Documentation task. :tumbler_glass:

To make sure that users do not use the Documentation Requests topic to ask How-To questions, maybe, there could also be a new category for Tutorial Requests. This will help, not only @Teodor, but also Brian (@Hyperbytes) and myself to create more meaningful tutorials.

For both categories, a voting system should be setup as is done with Feature Requests.

Have a great Wapplering day.

2 Likes

just here to say that i 100% agree with this topic. I love wappler but gosh, documentation is often outdated or missing and one has to be 100% commited to wappler to not lose focus and browse alternatives. Without chatgpt (and other ai) I wouldn’t have been able to use this solution.

1 Like

I had long discussions with the wappler team before leaving for holiday.
@Teodor said he would discuss this with @George and we could continue the discussions on return (That’s next week, cutting vacation short)
The basic idea they have for docs is OK (but far from perfect) but it is not managed. I suggested management of docs could be improved by enlisting support from ambassadors.

The current docs are just forum posts pulled via API calls, arranged according to the post category but as it is not managed many entries are outdated, incorrect or even irrelevant.
I will continue my crusade to get them better.

4 Likes

Important point, people often complain docs are poor but rarely offer an alternative.
For example,a lot of app connect components are bootstrap components which are well described in the bootstrap documentation so tutorials are flavoured showing examples of use rather than a simple teoeat of bootstrap.

2 Likes

I agree that documentation is lacking and difficult to find at times. For example: Can anyone find a “How to setup Registration”? I know of one post that goes through it, but it’s not titled that way.

“True” documentation should be a separate site (i.e. docs.wappler.io), not released as posts in the forum. It should also cover the details in two separate ways to discuss the core technical details and then how to use them to build. Bubble Docs does a great job of this, calling them “The User Manual” and “The Core Reference”.

They also go one step further and have tons of links within their UI that launch the documentation for the feature you’re trying to use when you hover over them. The reference link in the screenshot below leads to this: https://manual.bubble.io/core-resources/elements/visual-elements#text-element
image

It’s something I mentioned in a post years ago and someone else requested a similar feature for Wappler.

The Wappler team could move to GitBook with Github integration, or something similar, and then allow the community to submit pull requests to help build out the documentation. https://docs.gitbook.com/integrations/git-sync/github-pull-request-preview

I never, ever saw “call-for-documentation” request :slight_smile:

I think the beginning is simple. Every UI element, every component you can use, whether in the visual or server layer should be documented. Described what it is, what it is used for, examples of use. Good and bad patterns. Security notes (if needed).

And these aren’t some uninvented ideas. Just the basics to make it easier to work with such a powerful tool.

I started my journey of portal development tools specifically with Bubble.

And it’s true. The documentation is sensational. It allows you to move forward quickly, even if you are just starting out with the tool.

Bubble lost out due to vendor-lock, outdated UI, poor versatility, and lack of easy cost estimation.

These are elements that Wappler solves really well. And that’s why I ultimately (after playing with Bubble, Noodl, Plasmatic, Bildr, Weweb) chose Wappler.

5 Likes

This is a helpful thread but certainly not something that has been raised many times over the years.

To give a very quick example (off the top of my head)…

Data Validation in Server Connect. This is a great feature and one I use a lot. But I keep having to go back to a previous use of it to remind myself exactly how it should be set up.

We just get this box:

It would make life soooooo much easier if there was just a hint icon which opened a tooltip giving a couple of examples, much like the tooltip for the date formatter where we’re given all the options for days, months, etc.

There are fields which require the input but it’s not clear whether it should be the id or the name so you end up using trial and error. Just saying ‘id’ or ‘name’ would help a lot.

1 Like

I strongly wonder why, with Response (Server Actions), there are no predefined response types :wink:

Why similarly with the _SERVER parameter.

Little things like that get the job done. And they are in the wappler at almost every step :slight_smile:

1 Like

See

See

1 Like

I think, Ben, this illustrates my point.
Many features/components are standard Web or bootstrap components which are already well documented but some seem to want these documented again in docs.

3 Likes

See this

I’m not sure why you guys are being so dismissive of other’s suggestions. The goal of low-code/no-code is to make development easier. All of Bootstrap is well documented yet Wappler makes it easy for you to create a Bootstrap table or add other Bootstrap elements. Similarly, Wappler could create a modal that allows a user to select (with a description) each of the server and response types.

Keith, I am not dismissive of other’s suggestions, I am very respectful of those suggestions. I think that the problem stems from the different types of users that Wappler attracts.

In my case, I created my own flat file-based database back in the late '70s, using Benton Harbour Basic on an 8-bit HealthKit H8, with 4kB of RAM

image

After a subsequent Zenith H89 machine (which I still possess), I delved into 16-bit computers and went all the way through the different Intel processors until now, a machine that is a fraction of the size of my original H8, an Intel 12th gen 64-bit NUC.

What I am trying to say is, that my view of Wappler differs vastly from those that were not even born when I started computer programming. I view Wappler as a tool that does most of the coding for me, thus reducing development time. I hardly ever visit the Wappler documentation, only when it is Wappler specific. As such, I have found the documentation more than sufficient.

I am sure that the coding knowledge base of the Wappler Team surpasses mine. I am also sure that the Team is blinded by this knowledge base when they create the documentation. That is why I have suggested input from Wappler users to suggest specifics when they see where the documentation fails. I think that this would be a win-win for all concerned.

@kfawcett’s suggestion allowing a user to select an HTTP response, should really be posted in Feature Request. I’ll be the first to back this.

2 Likes