Talk:Programming Conventions

From RISC OS

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Authorship)
(Formality)
Line 36: Line 36:
== Authorship ==
== Authorship ==
OK, I've made it more formal and it's been a few weeks since my comments about not wanting it to be "my" page, with no objections, so I'll re-word the intro.<br>[[User:Adamr|Adamr]] 00:26, 4 Feb 2007 (GMT)
OK, I've made it more formal and it's been a few weeks since my comments about not wanting it to be "my" page, with no objections, so I'll re-word the intro.<br>[[User:Adamr|Adamr]] 00:26, 4 Feb 2007 (GMT)
 +
 +
== Formality ==
 +
 +
Despite the previous changes, I still feel the article is far too informal.

Revision as of 00:09, 5 February 2007

When adding comments please sign them with ~~~~ which inserts your username and the date

Contents

Comments

Please use the preview button to show how things look, instead of endless change log entries. Pnaulls

Sorry, yes, I've been in the process of translating the page from HTML so keep noticing things and making amendments. Hopefully the basic structure/layout/conversion is complete now. --Adamr 15:03, 8 Jan 2007 (GMT)


Re, Pnaulls' comment:

The following is opinion of Adam Richardson and may
or may not be agreed with by other RISC OS programmers.

I do not intend this page to simply be "my" view of the world. If that were the intention I would have left it on my website. I would rather that it gives a consensus view (if that's possible).

When I first published the article on my website I asked for comments on comp.sys.acorn.programmer and no major issues were raised. The only thing approaching being controversial was the bit about placing modules inside !System.

Peter, are there any specific parts of the document you think ought to be changed/removed?

--Adamr 17:10, 8 Jan 2007 (GMT)

Looks good

In the most part it looks very good and im sure will prove to be very useful. One minor point which I've thought of which might or might not help you - some of the language seems to be a bit informal. There seem to be plenty of people out there who will take a technical document such as this more seriously if the language is formal. For example, the statement "Since, well, ages ago" and the title "Installing Things" (things isnt very technical.)

As I said, only minor, in the most part it looks very useful :) Polas

Style

The style of the article needs to be much more formal. To be suitable as something which has consensus agreement, it needs to avoid first and third person references and casual language. The PRMs et al of course serve as a good model for this. It also needs to as much as possible provide references - for example to style guide pages or other material posted on usenet, etc, etc. --Pnaulls 17:12, 20 Jan 2007

Informal Style

Yes, I agree that the style should be more formal. (It's a hangover from the mood I was in when I wrote the original article.) I will go through and modify the language within the next couple of days. Adamr 13:16, 23 Jan 2007 (GMT)

Authorship

OK, I've made it more formal and it's been a few weeks since my comments about not wanting it to be "my" page, with no objections, so I'll re-word the intro.
Adamr 00:26, 4 Feb 2007 (GMT)

Formality

Despite the previous changes, I still feel the article is far too informal.

Personal tools