Content deleted Content added
→RfC: Partially Reversing Thumperward's deletions: reply to Thumperward |
Thumperward (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 249:
: I'm fine with the summary of the "specific codes" section being re-added. The rest is still purely implementational detail which provides no reader value in helping them understand the subject. It is sufficient to say that the language provides opcodes to perform specific functions without having to exhaustively list them. Likewise, I've never encountered a sample program on here beyond hello-world length which can even be followed by an inexpert reader, and a page-long listing with another full page of annotations (none of it sourced of course) is a perfect case of that. Obviously I have no opposition whatsoever to any and all of it being moved to Wikibooks, which accepts reference implementational content like this. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 07:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::The long listings of codes are actually FANUC-related. Opcodes details from any manufacturer should be kept out of scope of this article and moved elsewhere. <span style="font-weight: bold" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style="color:#a8a8a8;">AXO</span><span style="color:#000">NOV</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 08:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::: That doesn't matter. What individual opcodes do is not relevant to understanding the subject matter: it is solely relevant to operating it. I'm loathe to point at other programming language articles (wikipedia being subject to rapid change, article quality wildly fluctuating across both space and time, etc) but an exhaustive list of keywords is not a feature of any high-quality counterpart to this article. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 23:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
| |||