Talk:WikipediaArticleDesign
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Thoughts
- ' 2.4 Open and free' doesn't seem like a design decision on level of laziness and purity. Any number of other Haskell decisions would be much more important - compiled vs. interpreted comes to mind, as does 'static typing'... Licensing can be dealt with in the intro ('Haskell is a Free language...')
- '3.1.7 Comments' can probably be folded into the layout section; conceptually, it seems to me that layout must handle comments.
- '3.1.8 N+K Controversy' n+k patterns are a kind of pattern-matching, so they're in the wrong section to begin with. I also think they're a minor part of the language which were hardly ever used and which are going away; this is, as we Wikipedians like to say, undue emphasis. Remember, sections appear in the TOC.
- A similar point holds for any section on implicit parameters; we're not trying to present all the weird corners of the language which people hardly ever use.
- '3.4.2 Exceptions' Is this actually on Maybe?
- '3.7.3 Distribution' is a very important topic. I suggest 2 subsections, on Cabal and Hackage separately; dunno if a third, on cabal-install, is also warranted.
- '4. Implementations' could use organizing. It should basically be the top three compilers by popularity, and an 'Other'. So that'd be something like GHC, Hugs, and YHC or EHC/UHC. Certainly there's no call to be discussing at length with people who don't care all the details of JHC vs. LHC or HBC, or Gofer.
- '5.3 Alex and Happy' - no Parsec? Or rather, why aren't these in the app or libraries sections with Parsec?
- '7. Libraries and Distribution' - unclear what goes in here. Top 3 packages on Hackage in those categories with external links thereto?
--Gwern 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)