When I originally started programming my view of open source was it meant there was more code I had to look at and learn in order to be productive. The implication was that with closed source libraries the author was responsible for creating true black boxes – input goes in, output comes out, and since you had no knowledge of the workings the author should carefully document each function and system. The other half was that open source library authors could be lazy – you were expected to look at the code if you had a problem.
Ironically, I started out using the worst documented and packaged API I’ve ever seen – Panard Vision. This was back in version 4.0 or so, but I checked on the website recently and saw something like “Version 7.0 just released, documentation coming soon.” I was more tolerant and less able back then than I was now, so I spent a good week just trying to get it to compile. You can imagine my rightfully felt wrath, considering I just spent several hundred dollars registering. I wrote a scathing review on the gaming site I was running back then. That was ridiculous since the gaming site had nothing to do with programming libraries. I just wanted a place to attack and vent. Considering how unpopular his library still is, even after all these years, it seems like others agree documentation is important.
Programmers document or not depending on their own conscientiousness and it has nothing to do what they should do. Open source simply lets you see inside the black box if you want to, which you will when you run into bugs. Recent experiences have driven that lesson home.
Closed source libraries protect the author at the cost of the user’s time. Since my time is valuable to me, I’m immediately rejecting libraries that are closed source from this point forward.