Talk:Data, context and interaction
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Broken link
editWikipedia page "pattern language (computer science)" doesn't exists. Should we refer to generic Pattern_Language -article instead? Rvalimaki (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Distinguishing Characteristics of DCI
editHi, everyone,
After we put together the initial article, I found that though accurate, it was perhaps a bit too imprecise. It was general enough that other approaches that fail on key DCI foundations could still be argued as being DCI according to the claims of the article. The first paragraph of the "Distinguishing Characteristics" section is my slight modification to Trygve's attempt to come up with a "litmus test" for DCI. The rest of the section is extemporization (but not, I hope, expansion).
Does this section work for you? Do you find it redundant with the other material in the article? Do you feel it is necessary?
Misstatements of fact in ObjectTeam-related additions
editBack on 8 September I noticed the addition of the description of the related work in ObjectTeams ("Role-Based Programming.") It contains several inaccuracies. It contrasts itself with DCI by describing DCI as having more focus on method; no, DCI is a programming technique to support the object paradigm. It says that it solves the schizophrenia problem; no, it does not, as was published at SPLASH (Coplien, James O., and Trygve Mikkjel Heyerdahl Reenskaug. The data, context and interaction paradigm. In Gary T. Leavens (Ed.): Conference on Systems, Programming, and Applications: Software for Humanity, SPLASH '12, Tucson, AZ, USA, October 21-25, 2012. ACM 2012, ISBN 978-1-4503-1563-0, pp. 227 - 228.) I plan to edit the section down to a minimal summary and to correct the errors of fact. Jcoplien (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Inappropriate style
editQuote from the article: "every Waiter is a homo sapiens (or, if we admit robots...)". This is not how an encyclopedia is written - this could be a part of an essay. Wikipedia is not for writing essays, speeches or lectures. --Derbeth talk 12:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Notability and original research
editI removed any references to "Marvin" "programming language". The links here directed to a GitHub repository with an empty README, dead since 2 years and having altogether 4 commits (!!!). This language should have never entered Wikipedia. --Derbeth talk 12:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Neutrality?
editI'd like to bring to the attention of wikipedia editors, that this article to some extend seems to be "controlled" by one of the authors of the approach described here: Jcoplien. I feel that in this situation achieving a NPOV is difficult at best.
While this might be a general problem, here's a particular case: I authored a paragraph in the History section, being careful to only add more points of view, not to start an edit war on existing content. Seeing that Jcoplien "corrected" this paragraph in ways I cannot agree with, I should probably enter a discussion with him. From previous discussions in a different forum, however, I know that Jcoplien and myself will not agree on a number of things. Even though his changes of the paragraph in question are only "small" I have the impression that he is pursuing a WIN strategy, rather than seeking NPOV.
Ideally, a truly neutral contributor, whom both sides respect in this role, invests the time to study the references and reports about his/her findings in a neutral way. I'm not sure, however, whether anyone outside the immediate group of enthusiasts would feel sufficient motivation to invest such efforts.
Snherrmann (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Snherrmann: Hoo boy...it's highly unorthodox for authors to be adding content to Wikipedia articles citing their own published sources, and you've both done that. I think I may have neutralized the language in the article. Is there anything still in dispute? Someone will probably need to do a lot of repair to this article so it's not quite so close to primary sources. -- Beland (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Multiple dispatch
editThe paragraph on multiple dispatch may be an example of the NPOV problem of the article. It shows either a misunderstanding or a voluntary misrepresentation of multiple dispatch, because 100% of what Context objects can do, multiple dispatch makes it possible, and much more. You could actually argue that context objects or even DCI as a whole are pretty common sub-patterns that naturally emerge from the availability of multiple dispatch. — Nowhere man (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The neutrality of History section
editThe part of the History section that relates DCI to similar approaches in both microscopic and macroscopic level was written as DCI pamphlet: how DCI is better than everything else. In wikipedia we avoid doing that, we let the reader decide. I made several edits, mostly dealing with the tone of presentation. Comments are welcome. Nxavar (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)