[002]
Jinren
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
* The distinction between \
to:
* The distinction between \\\"Popular\\\" and \\\"Historic\\\" languages seems a bit arbitrary.
* The individual language entries aren\\\'t consistent or organised.
The article started well, but was obviously incomplete. Now it\\\'s better for content but we\\\'ve hacked it apart into a disorganised mess that was very obviously put together by different people. There are also a few obvious places where people have tried to shoehorn in unnecessary points (e.g. Python doesn\\\'t need to be mentioned every five lines, doesn\\\'t contribute \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' to the interpreter/compiler section).
What I think isn\\\'t obvious is that this article is really only going to be any good for people already familiar with programming. For example, without any explanation of paradigms, but with that enormous list of Hello World examples, a casual reader might come away thinking that all programming languages are a {{Fictionary}} over the same algorithmic language (which is about as wrong as can be). It also jumps around from topic to topic in a way that I think is going to be hard to follow for anyone who doesn\\\'t already know why those topics are there.
Suggestions, then:
* restructure of the description section to cover more important concepts like the various major paradigms, their evolution from each other, etc. Turing-equivalence needs mention too.
* less emphasis on syntax, as this is the bit that will confuse casual readers (syntax looks important but isn\\\'t, \\\'\\\'isn\\\'t\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'isn\\\'t\\\'\\\'\\\'!). Explicit mention needs to be made of the fact that syntax is only there to help expression and readability and has no bearing on program structure.
* a reorganised language list. No, I don\\\'t think that there should only be one list, but I\\\'m not sure about the distinction between \\\"historically significant\\\" and \\\"popular\\\" (e.g. C is about as significant as you can get; Lisp is still enormously popular). Good call whoever added the \\\"esoteric\\\" section though, and I think there\\\'s room for tropey goodness in filling that one out some more.
* Clean up the language entries. Each entry should be around the same length (say three to five lines), \\\'\\\'not be too long\\\'\\\', and similar in structure so that there\\\'s some meaningful comparison going on. Shorter entries where there\\\'s little to say should either be extended or moved elsewhere (maybe another list group?), and longer entries should be split or cut down.
** idea: Perhaps we could have a \\\"language families\\\" structure, modelled after the current BASIC entry?
* Less cruft. we don\\\'t need repeated mention that Python has two versions and a list of their differences (yes I know I\\\'m exaggerating but it stands out as an obvious example). We don\\\'t need \\\"free-and-open-source\\\" after every non-Visual-Studio entry. WE DON\\\'T CARE how SQL is pronounced! etc etc. The examples should be meaningful.
If I had clear ideas for how to go about this I would be implementing them, so please make some suggestions! And most importantly, this article needs continued discussion if it\\\'s going to be well-maintained.
\\\'\\\'\\\'EDIT:\\\'\\\'\\\' quickly reviewing my complaints... the article\\\'s really not as bad as I make it sound. But I\\\'d still like to improve it if possible, so... AccentuateTheNegative ahoy!
* The individual language entries aren\\\'t consistent or organised.
The article started well, but was obviously incomplete. Now it\\\'s better for content but we\\\'ve hacked it apart into a disorganised mess that was very obviously put together by different people. There are also a few obvious places where people have tried to shoehorn in unnecessary points (e.g. Python doesn\\\'t need to be mentioned every five lines, doesn\\\'t contribute \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' to the interpreter/compiler section).
What I think isn\\\'t obvious is that this article is really only going to be any good for people already familiar with programming. For example, without any explanation of paradigms, but with that enormous list of Hello World examples, a casual reader might come away thinking that all programming languages are a {{Fictionary}} over the same algorithmic language (which is about as wrong as can be). It also jumps around from topic to topic in a way that I think is going to be hard to follow for anyone who doesn\\\'t already know why those topics are there.
Suggestions, then:
* restructure of the description section to cover more important concepts like the various major paradigms, their evolution from each other, etc. Turing-equivalence needs mention too.
* less emphasis on syntax, as this is the bit that will confuse casual readers (syntax looks important but isn\\\'t, \\\'\\\'isn\\\'t\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'isn\\\'t\\\'\\\'\\\'!). Explicit mention needs to be made of the fact that syntax is only there to help expression and readability and has no bearing on program structure.
* a reorganised language list. No, I don\\\'t think that there should only be one list, but I\\\'m not sure about the distinction between \\\"historically significant\\\" and \\\"popular\\\" (e.g. C is about as significant as you can get; Lisp is still enormously popular). Good call whoever added the \\\"esoteric\\\" section though, and I think there\\\'s room for tropey goodness in filling that one out some more.
* Clean up the language entries. Each entry should be around the same length (say three to five lines), \\\'\\\'not be too long\\\'\\\', and similar in structure so that there\\\'s some meaningful comparison going on. Shorter entries where there\\\'s little to say should either be extended or moved elsewhere (maybe another list group?), and longer entries should be split or cut down.
** idea: Perhaps we could have a \\\"language families\\\" structure, modelled after the current BASIC entry?
* Less cruft. we don\\\'t need repeated mention that Python has two versions and a list of their differences (yes I know I\\\'m exaggerating but it stands out as an obvious example). We don\\\'t need \\\"free-and-open-source\\\" after every non-Visual-Studio entry. WE DON\\\'T CARE how SQL is pronounced! etc etc. The examples should be meaningful.
If I had clear ideas for how to go about this I would be implementing them, so please make some suggestions! And most importantly, this article needs continued discussion if it\\\'s going to be well-maintained.
\\\'\\\'\\\'EDIT:\\\'\\\'\\\' quickly reviewing my complaints... the article\\\'s really not as bad as I make it sound. But I\\\'d still like to improve it if possible, so... AccentuateTheNegative ahoy!
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
- There\'s no discussion of programming paradigms
- I don\'t like the cake baking example or hello world comparison
- The distinction between \
- I don\'t like the cake baking example or hello world comparison
- The distinction between \
to:
* There\\\'s no discussion of programming paradigms.
* I don\\\'t like the cake baking example or hello world comparison.
* The distinction between \\\"Popular\\\" and \\\"Historic\\\" languages seems a bit arbitrary.
* The individual language entries aren\\\'t consistent or organised.
The article started well, but was obviously incomplete. Now it\\\'s better for content but we\\\'ve hacked it apart into a disorganised mess that was very obviously put together by different people. There are also a few obvious places where people have tried to shoehorn in unnecessary points (e.g. Python doesn\\\'t need to be mentioned every five lines, doesn\\\'t contribute \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' to the interpreter/compiler section).
What I think isn\\\'t obvious is that this article is really only going to be any good for people already familiar with programming. For example, without any explanation of paradigms, but with that enormous list of Hello World examples, a casual reader might come away thinking that all programming languages are a {{Fictionary}} over the same algorithmic language (which is about as wrong as can be). It also jumps around from topic to topic in a way that I think is going to be hard to follow for anyone who doesn\\\'t already know why those topics are there.
Suggestions, then:
* restructure of the description section to cover more important concepts like the various major paradigms, their evolution from each other, etc. Turing-equivalence needs mention too.
* less emphasis on syntax, as this is the bit that will confuse casual readers (syntax looks important but isn\\\'t, \\\'\\\'isn\\\'t\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'isn\\\'t\\\'\\\'\\\'!). Explicit mention needs to be made of the fact that syntax is only there to help expression and readability and has no bearing on program structure.
* a reorganised language list. No, I don\\\'t think that there should only be one list, but I\\\'m not sure about the distinction between \\\"historically significant\\\" and \\\"popular\\\" (e.g. C is about as significant as you can get; Lisp is still enormously popular). Good call whoever added the \\\"esoteric\\\" section though, and I think there\\\'s room for tropey goodness in filling that one out some more.
* Clean up the language entries. Each entry should be around the same length (say three to five lines), \\\'\\\'not be too long\\\'\\\', and similar in structure so that there\\\'s some meaningful comparison going on. Shorter entries where there\\\'s little to say should either be extended or moved elsewhere (maybe another list group?), and longer entries should be split or cut down.
** idea: Perhaps we could have a \\\"language families\\\" structure, modelled after the current BASIC entry?
* Less cruft. we don\\\'t need repeated mention that Python has two versions and a list of their differences (yes I know I\\\'m exaggerating but it stands out as an obvious example). We don\\\'t need \\\"free-and-open-source\\\" after every non-Visual-Studio entry. WE DON\\\'T CARE how SQL is pronounced! etc etc. The examples should be meaningful.
If I had clear ideas for how to go about this I would be implementing them, so please make some suggestions! And most importantly, this article needs continued discussion if it\\\'s going to be well-maintained.
* I don\\\'t like the cake baking example or hello world comparison.
* The distinction between \\\"Popular\\\" and \\\"Historic\\\" languages seems a bit arbitrary.
* The individual language entries aren\\\'t consistent or organised.
The article started well, but was obviously incomplete. Now it\\\'s better for content but we\\\'ve hacked it apart into a disorganised mess that was very obviously put together by different people. There are also a few obvious places where people have tried to shoehorn in unnecessary points (e.g. Python doesn\\\'t need to be mentioned every five lines, doesn\\\'t contribute \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' to the interpreter/compiler section).
What I think isn\\\'t obvious is that this article is really only going to be any good for people already familiar with programming. For example, without any explanation of paradigms, but with that enormous list of Hello World examples, a casual reader might come away thinking that all programming languages are a {{Fictionary}} over the same algorithmic language (which is about as wrong as can be). It also jumps around from topic to topic in a way that I think is going to be hard to follow for anyone who doesn\\\'t already know why those topics are there.
Suggestions, then:
* restructure of the description section to cover more important concepts like the various major paradigms, their evolution from each other, etc. Turing-equivalence needs mention too.
* less emphasis on syntax, as this is the bit that will confuse casual readers (syntax looks important but isn\\\'t, \\\'\\\'isn\\\'t\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'isn\\\'t\\\'\\\'\\\'!). Explicit mention needs to be made of the fact that syntax is only there to help expression and readability and has no bearing on program structure.
* a reorganised language list. No, I don\\\'t think that there should only be one list, but I\\\'m not sure about the distinction between \\\"historically significant\\\" and \\\"popular\\\" (e.g. C is about as significant as you can get; Lisp is still enormously popular). Good call whoever added the \\\"esoteric\\\" section though, and I think there\\\'s room for tropey goodness in filling that one out some more.
* Clean up the language entries. Each entry should be around the same length (say three to five lines), \\\'\\\'not be too long\\\'\\\', and similar in structure so that there\\\'s some meaningful comparison going on. Shorter entries where there\\\'s little to say should either be extended or moved elsewhere (maybe another list group?), and longer entries should be split or cut down.
** idea: Perhaps we could have a \\\"language families\\\" structure, modelled after the current BASIC entry?
* Less cruft. we don\\\'t need repeated mention that Python has two versions and a list of their differences (yes I know I\\\'m exaggerating but it stands out as an obvious example). We don\\\'t need \\\"free-and-open-source\\\" after every non-Visual-Studio entry. WE DON\\\'T CARE how SQL is pronounced! etc etc. The examples should be meaningful.
If I had clear ideas for how to go about this I would be implementing them, so please make some suggestions! And most importantly, this article needs continued discussion if it\\\'s going to be well-maintained.
