Talk:Computer program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleComputer program was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
November 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 17, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 28, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article


Moved Software Engineering's definition of computer program to talk[edit]

Moved removed this from the lead:

In software engineering, code refers to computer instructions and data definitions expressed in a programming language or in a form output by an assembler, compiler, or other translator to express a computer program in a programming language.[1]

The lead should be a road map to the rest of the article. Moreover, why is the citation the entire book? Timhowardriley (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ISO/IEC/IEEE International Standard - Systems and software engineering. ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010(E). pp. vol., no., pp.1-418.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I removed it because I think it's a fake. Brian Kernighan said in a Linux Journal interview that Dennis Ritchie invented the language. Timhowardriley (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expand sections that are just stubs[edit]

The good article reviewer implied that each section should be balanced. He said, "Boot program and Embedded programs consists of only a few sentences each." Any help is appreciated. Timhowardriley (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article's definition sentence.[edit]

I wish an author would publish, "Computer programs are the instructions for computers." Who could argue with this? However, computer textbook authors define computer program within the context of their book. Unfortunately, computer science now-a-days is so broad that any definition is going to have a flaw to at least one editor of this article. Dr. Wilson's definition best describes this article's essence. It succeeds because it limits the scope of the definition to modern computers, and it's broad enough to include any computer from the 50s onward. I like that it first defines the scope by using the passive voice. An active voice sentence would begin with "A computer program is ..." This is going to have a serious flaw to someone. It would need to be very long to include the broad spectrum of nuances. Timhowardriley (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The recent reversions of my edit to the lede are in violation of the WP:DONTREVERT guidance and is, by the editor's own admission, edit warring. For all interested parties, please refer to WP:WHENNOTCITE: "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article," which is the case here. Also, refer to virtually any article here (e.g. Common Sense, Stupidity, or Rock (geology)) to see that properly formatted ledes comprise the theme of the given article, not some collateral theme. Accordingly, for anyone who's dissatisfied with this article's current lede, please edit it in a manner that begins with, "A computer program is..." A lede that otherwise starts with an explanation of what a computer is smacks of circumlocutory foolishness. See MOS:LEAD as needed. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:REFCLUTTER. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding a sourced definition: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/computer+program . I'm fine with calling a computer program a sequence of instructions; however, declarative programmers have raised valid issues. By the way, your intimidating message on my talk page was counter productive. Timhowardriley (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the definition is dicey and the cite is superfluous. Let declarative programmers edit it however they want, with anything starting with "A computer program is..." Another FYI: Per WP guidance, the contents of any message on an editor's talk page is nonrelevant vis-à-vis an article's substance and talk page. Accordingly, whether anyone deems a notice of 3RR repercussions to be intimidating or counterproductive is similarly impertinent to the article's substance. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 08:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

Hey, Timhowardriley! You've reverted my edit in see also section without any justification. For such an important topic as computer program is, see also here is a pile of garbage. Why are a bunch of programming langs here? Utf-8? Bill Gates?! Please see WP:SEEALSO, and remove these junk, it doesn't help any reader. And to keep this more widespread I'll ping @David Eppstein:, who's the only admin I know knowledgeable in math and compsci.

Cheers. 37.214.79.163 (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 37.214.79.163. I built the 'See Also' list by extracting all the unique wikilinks from the articles 'Software' and 'Computer programming'. Personally, I use it as a reading list to keep up-to-date on technology. Timhowardriley (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed 'Bill Gates'. Another editor added Utf-8 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_program&diff=1069134714&oldid=1069102066 . Timhowardriley (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand it, but by having so many links here you make it unreadable. If people would like to read about php, they can, but if it's not in text, it shouldn't be cluttered between dozens of other links. Ideally See also should be as small as possible, with not all relevant links possible as such list would be huge. You can, of course, place all the links to all the programming languages or algorithms or important people here, but that's not a purpose. If it's not linked inside lengthy article, maybe it just shouldn't be here? 37.214.79.163 (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timhowardriley: The see also list is way way too long. And extracting all wikilinks from an article is not how they should be built. Generally, see also links are for topics that should be covered in the main text of an article, but aren't. There should only be a few of them (at most maybe half a dozen, often zero) in a well developed article. Please take a chainsaw to your list, or stop policing it and let others do so. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't encourage others to arbitrarily chainsaw. I consider every item germane. Here's another article with a long 'See also' list: Graph_theory#See_also. Timhowardriley (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That list is also too long, for the reasons David Eppstein explained, and because it piles additional links on top of the no less than five lists of links with which it begins. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation organisation, uncited claims[edit]

A bit surprised to see some textbooks like Tanenbaum defined locally many times, rather than put into a list of Sources just once and reused with sfn links or something similar. A program written that way would attract ... quite a bit of wry amusement, I suspect. Meanwhile, if this article is a serious GAN candidate, some attention ought to be given to the multiple uncited claims in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whereas only two of Andrew S. Tanenbaum's books are referenced, each page number is individually cited. If there is an efficient way to express this, then an editor in good faith will make the change.
  • The "wry amusement" opinion is not germane.
  • The eight citation needed tags cover seven sections and constitute Wikipedia:Tag bombing. The article may have a referenced source for the entire paragraph, but not every sentence in the paragraph is cited. One fact was tagged that is supported in this wikilinked article: X86_assembly_language#Instruction_types. Another trivial fact was tagged that is just a transition sentence to the next section.
  • Wikipedia:Tag bombing says, "Adding tags to articles should be accompanied by sufficient reasoning on the tagged article's talk page." This talk page reasoning is insufficient. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTREPOSITORY[edit]

Most of the code throughout the article, specifically around Computer_program#Object-oriented_programming should be removed per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Articles aren't the place for a code dump of one's favorite language. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 03:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This post is a retribution because I failed this editor's GA request. See Talk:Binary_search_tree/GA2#Final_assessment. Timhowardriley (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change the fact that you were advocating for code farm, that's the only purpose this post serves - to make you aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Definitely not a retribution. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 06:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal statement of "I'm sorry, but I don't think you're well-versed with our policies on computer science ..." displays anger. Timhowardriley (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Computer_program&oldid=1083322440"