Jump to content

Talk:Expression problem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AfroThundr3007730 (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 8 January 2024 (Assessment: −banner shell (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputer science Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Original Research?

A bunch of very non-encyclopedic content was added to this page describing new, published work related to the Expression Problem. I somewhat hastily called it Original Research in my edit summary reverting it, but there was an article cited (badly) and it may be that some of the content was appropriate for this page. Someone who knows more might want to attempt to incorporate some of it back into the page in a manner that follows style & content guidelines. Personman (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Yes ! Original Research!

Due to the move of the Haskell.org on a new server there were broken links.

As a Ph.D I had the intention of continuing this page. Do not reject experts!

Ha$kell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.170.229 (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem description is unclear

I think the problem description is not clear: What is "representation", BTW? Maybe give an example (preferably language-independent) showing the problem. --Uhw (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biased formulation about Reynold

That sounds like its written by someone who is endorsing object orientation, without any given source. It reads very much like a personal opinion:

"However, Reynold's conclusions based on this early analysis turned out to be completely wrong: he wrote that adding a second method to an object "is more a tour de force than a specimen of clear programming," which completely missed the Object-Oriented paradigm and its great success. He also believed the two forms of data abstraction "are inherently distinct and complementary." 77.119.171.90 (talk) 77.119.171.90 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The paragraph has two problems. It supposedly quotes someone but fails to provide a citation, it then, as you write, goes on to draw a conclusion that is not supported by a citation and appears to be the editor's own opinion. I have removed the offending text. MarcGarver (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]