Content deleted Content added
→Confusing wording: new section |
|||
Line 219:
== Tone ==
{{Merge|Talk:Scala_(programming_language)#Promotion.}}
The lead reads like promotional material for the language. It actually creates a hype. The wording is far from optimal in many cases. [[User:Nxavar|Nxavar]] ([[User talk:Nxavar|talk]]) 21:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Nxavar}} Could you specify those cases? [[User:Brycehughes|Brycehughes]] ([[User talk:Brycehughes|talk]]) 03:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Line 226:
::::In my edit of the first paragraph I had as a model the way other languages are presented in Wikipedia. I am a programmer myself but I have little knowledge and experience in functional programming. While the first paragraph was general enough to be edited by a non-expert in functional languages, I think the second needs someone more familiar with this programming paradigm, because it goes into a lot of detail. As a general comment, I believe that the amount of detail should be reduced, which would be easier with a rewrite. The problem is I don't know what to take out, or how to group things. Maybe you can take a shot at a rewrite? [[User:Nxavar|Nxavar]] ([[User talk:Nxavar|talk]]) 11:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Nxavar}} Ok, done. [[User:Brycehughes|Brycehughes]] ([[User talk:Brycehughes|talk]]) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm a beginner in editing Wikipedia articles, but I have a few comments. Firstly, I think this section should be merged with section 3 - promotion, as it discussed a similar problem with this article. In addition, I have a few other edits to help balance the tone of the article:
* Lines 1-2: "a very strong static type system". I think "a static type system" will do, but if some adjective is to be kept, we should at least remove the "very"
* Lines 2-3: "were inspired by criticism of Java's shortcomings". The "shortcomings" part is an opinion. We could write that the language was inspirted by criticism of Java, as criticism can be subjective. Adding the phrase "of Java's shortcomings" makes a statement that the criticism is justified.
* In the section "Features (with reference to Java)" the third paragraph makes a bold case that Scala has significantly more features than Java which make the language "theoretically cleaner". This is a highly promoting tone, that should at least be backed up with references if not completely rewritten.
I have other examples as well, but I think these 3 are a good start. [[User:Deansg|Deansg]] ([[User talk:Deansg|talk]])
== Companies ==
| |||