Content deleted Content added
Rant |
m Moved rant to bottom of page to restore temporal order |
||
Line 1:
==Terrible Formatting and Flow==▼
I just can't believe a programmer wrote this stuff. The flow of logic is terrible! The lack of punctuation is appalling!▼
*For all things that are good and holy, don't you know that the double-space after a period was relinquished with the typewriter?▼
*Use language that makes sense!▼
::*"Traditional class-based OO languages are based on a deep-rooted duality. ''Classes'' define the basic qualities and behaviours of objects, and ''object instances'' are particular objects which are based on a class."▼
::::'''That's a terrible description!'''▼
::*"For instance, one might have a <code>Vehicle</code> class that has a ''name'' and the ability to perform ''drive to work'' and ''deliver construction materials''."▼
::::'''Classes don't ''have'' a ''name''! They specify that ''objects'' of that class have a name.''' ▼
At least refer the reader to possibly better information; I stopped my improvements when I realized the problems were systemic. How can you possibly program properly when your ideas are so muddled? Perhaps that's why:▼
::"All too often the program would eventually need added behaviours, and the whole system (or rather sections of it) need to be re-designed (or refactored) to break out the objects in a different way."▼
--[[User:Lingwitt|Lingwitt]] 04:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)▼
==Rapidly dated information==
I think it's utterly pointless to include information that is ''guaranteed'' to be out of date quickly. Saying that development was still proceding as of September, 2004 is effectively a statement that will need to be updated every single month (assuming that development really is continuing). Giving the version number of the last release is again another piece of information that is likely to need to be updated. What useful purpose does this information serve? For example, what information does "version 4.2.1" provide to the reader? The article doesn't bother to give any additional information about Self's version history. To someone who's not already quite familiar with Self's development, "version 4.2.1" is just a meaningless number. It's worth noting that this kind of information is against [[Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly|policy]].
Line 109 ⟶ 90:
--[[User:EngineerScotty|EngineerScotty]] 20:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
▲==Terrible Formatting and Flow==
▲I just can't believe a programmer wrote this stuff. The flow of logic is terrible! The lack of punctuation is appalling!
▲*For all things that are good and holy, don't you know that the double-space after a period was relinquished with the typewriter?
▲*Use language that makes sense!
▲::*"Traditional class-based OO languages are based on a deep-rooted duality. ''Classes'' define the basic qualities and behaviours of objects, and ''object instances'' are particular objects which are based on a class."
▲::::'''That's a terrible description!'''
▲::*"For instance, one might have a <code>Vehicle</code> class that has a ''name'' and the ability to perform ''drive to work'' and ''deliver construction materials''."
▲::::'''Classes don't ''have'' a ''name''! They specify that ''objects'' of that class have a name.'''
▲At least refer the reader to possibly better information; I stopped my improvements when I realized the problems were systemic. How can you possibly program properly when your ideas are so muddled? Perhaps that's why:
▲::"All too often the program would eventually need added behaviours, and the whole system (or rather sections of it) need to be re-designed (or refactored) to break out the objects in a different way."
▲--[[User:Lingwitt|Lingwitt]] 04:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
| |||