Talk:WikipediaArticleDesign

From HaskellWiki
Revision as of 23:13, 2 August 2009 by DonStewart (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

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)