Talk:Intentional programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:18, 4 January 2008

Latest revision as of 14:20, 2 March 2025

(18 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

===What book?==

{{Old XfD multi| date = 18 February 2015 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Intentional programming }}

{{WikiProject banner shell|

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Software|importance=Mid}}

}}

==Editing Model, Not Programming Model==

This article doesn't really seem to be covering what the thing actually is. It's a CAD program for code, with no ramifications for runtime.

Looks to me Intentional Programming is storing code in a graph database, and an editor for that. Variables and operators have UUID naming, which it hides from you. It is a database so no whitespace, and no need to pair open and close brackets because it's just an abstract syntax tree. A YouTube video shows logic operators in C rendering as circuits, or code blocks as boxes.

Is there really any other idea in it? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.2.62.149|67.2.62.149]] ([[User talk:67.2.62.149#top|talk]]) 13:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

===What book?==

"A very good overview of intentional programming is given in the Chapter 11 of the book [2]."

Line 5 ⟶ 21:

No response, so I changed the sentence. [[Special:Contributions/124.171.109.199|124.171.109.199]] ([[User talk:124.171.109.199|talk]]) 12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Jac

I'd go so far as to say that this is pure publicity for the book in question. I seriously question the relevance. Is this the only book giving an overview? Is it in any way special? IMHO this sentence is spam and should be deleted. [[Special:Contributions/82.95.90.204|82.95.90.204]] ([[User talk:82.95.90.204|talk]]) 08:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a Java class that, when saved to the file WhichI.java, will compile and illustrate the point being made correctly.

<syntaxhighlight lang="text">

<code>

public class WhichI {

public static String i = "am canadian";

Line 19 ⟶ 37:

}

}

</syntaxhighlight>

</code>

I think that the none functioning example in the text should be replaced with this one.

Line 31 ⟶ 49:

:I think there must be at least 11 researchers who would like this page to stay. [[User:Feraudyh|Feraudyh]] 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:I'm pretty sure this page is being used mainly to talk up a questionable company (I recently received a buzzword-filled recruitment email linking to this page and not much else). [[User:Darklink259|Darklink259]] 11:16, 17 February 2015

------------------------------------

Line 64 ⟶ 84:

This sounds like a marketing claim, more than an undisputable fact.

--[[User:Ketil]]

:: No. It is a definition. A marketing claim would be if some company said "My product is intentional programming". Of course their product could be pure garbage... This page is a definition, and it does not (or should not) assert that the instantiations of that idea are perfect representations of programmer intent. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] ([[User talk:Fresheneesz|talk]]) 19:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

== Python ==

It actually sounds a lot like what Python achieves and focuses on as a programming language.

[[Special:Contributions/210.215.140.180|210.215.140.180]] ([[User talk:210.215.140.180|talk]]) 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

== An ad for "Intentional Software"? ==

This article reads like an ad for Charles Simonyi's company, Intentional Software. Almost all of the citations are either works by Mr. Simonyi or interviews with Mr. Simonyi.

[[User:Ozymandias42|Ozymandias42]] ([[User talk:Ozymandias42|talk]]) 05:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

== Technology Review links ==

The old paginated links for Technology Review were missing, and the Wayback Machine excludes its copy. I found where the same article is posted now (it contains the quote) and updated+archived the links, but it does mess up the dating on some of the references: it sounds like it was originally published in two parts on January 8 and 9, the currently online version says January 1. So perhaps instead of what I did the old dead links should have been kept and the new one should be added as an alternative? Or the dates should be changed the Jan 1? [[User:Agashlin|Agashlin]] ([[User talk:Agashlin|talk]]) 16:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)