Personal tools

Talk:WikipediaArticleDesign

From HaskellWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(article length)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
* ~~'7. Libraries and Distribution' - unclear what goes in here. Top 3 packages on Hackage in those categories with external links thereto? ~~
 
* ~~'7. Libraries and Distribution' - unclear what goes in here. Top 3 packages on Hackage in those categories with external links thereto? ~~
 
--[[User:Gwern|Gwern]] 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Gwern|Gwern]] 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Length ==
 +
If all of these headings were fully fleshed-out, the resulting article would be too long. The usual technique to remedy this on Wikipedia is to take one or more of the longer sections, move its content to a separate article and replace it with a brief summary which links to the new article for that section. --[[User:Greenrd|Greenrd]] 12:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:26, 3 August 2009

1 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?~~ (changed to "Awkward Squad")
  • ~~'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)

2 Length

If all of these headings were fully fleshed-out, the resulting article would be too long. The usual technique to remedy this on Wikipedia is to take one or more of the longer sections, move its content to a separate article and replace it with a brief summary which links to the new article for that section. --Greenrd 12:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)