Difference between revisions of "Category talk:RPG"
Starbuck5250 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Hmm. Actually, now that I read the whole thing more carefully, I have to say I'm even more uncomfortable, because honestly, the article needs a lot of love to get it into shape. When the API section starts, we're most likely not talking about RPG vs. other languages anymore, despite the styling cues. Everything between the "RPG vs. other languages" heading and the "API" heading reads as very defensive. As if RPG is being bullied by proponents of other languages, who don't know enough about RPG to give it a fair shake. And maybe they don't know enough, but as someone who learned other languages before and after learning RPG, the "defense" only makes it sound like the RPG proponents are the ones who are suffering from ignorance of other languages. And that's unfortunate, because I don't think the language needs defending, it just needs to be presented accurately. That's all any language needs or deserves, really. I'll have to mull it over and write some drafts. [[User:Jky|jky]] ([[User talk:Jky|talk]]) 22:15, 2 June 2014 (CDT) | Hmm. Actually, now that I read the whole thing more carefully, I have to say I'm even more uncomfortable, because honestly, the article needs a lot of love to get it into shape. When the API section starts, we're most likely not talking about RPG vs. other languages anymore, despite the styling cues. Everything between the "RPG vs. other languages" heading and the "API" heading reads as very defensive. As if RPG is being bullied by proponents of other languages, who don't know enough about RPG to give it a fair shake. And maybe they don't know enough, but as someone who learned other languages before and after learning RPG, the "defense" only makes it sound like the RPG proponents are the ones who are suffering from ignorance of other languages. And that's unfortunate, because I don't think the language needs defending, it just needs to be presented accurately. That's all any language needs or deserves, really. I'll have to mull it over and write some drafts. [[User:Jky|jky]] ([[User talk:Jky|talk]]) 22:15, 2 June 2014 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Go for it! I agree that the whole thing can use some love. Since most of us on the platform already use RPG, I'm fairly sure this page doesn't get many views from within the community except as a gateway to articles like /free, which is why this article has lingered for so long. That's not an argument against editing it, but a possible explanation why it hasn't been done until now. [[User:Starbuck5250|Buck]] ([[User talk:Starbuck5250|talk]]) 08:58, 4 June 2014 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:58, 4 June 2014
I would like to remove the suggestion that RPG is object-oriented. I feel uncomfortable unilaterally editing it, as I'm completely new to this wiki, and I would at least like to see how other people feel about it first. From where I'm sitting, RPG is "perceived as not object-oriented" because it's simply not. At least not in the sense that anyone else in the world talking about OOP means. So, thoughts, anyone? jky (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (CDT)
I see the 'Objects and RPG' section as a bit odd as well, and I have over 3 decades of RPG experience. I think it was a way of trying to introduce IBM i into the topic. IBM i is quite important as far as RPG goes, because it is for all practical purposes impossible to separate RPG from IBM i. If you're still uncomfortable removing the lines, definitely feel free to make an edit that clarifies that RPG does not implement inheritance or polymorphism. We do have a limited subset of encapsulation though. Buck (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2014 (CDT)
Hmm. Actually, now that I read the whole thing more carefully, I have to say I'm even more uncomfortable, because honestly, the article needs a lot of love to get it into shape. When the API section starts, we're most likely not talking about RPG vs. other languages anymore, despite the styling cues. Everything between the "RPG vs. other languages" heading and the "API" heading reads as very defensive. As if RPG is being bullied by proponents of other languages, who don't know enough about RPG to give it a fair shake. And maybe they don't know enough, but as someone who learned other languages before and after learning RPG, the "defense" only makes it sound like the RPG proponents are the ones who are suffering from ignorance of other languages. And that's unfortunate, because I don't think the language needs defending, it just needs to be presented accurately. That's all any language needs or deserves, really. I'll have to mull it over and write some drafts. jky (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2014 (CDT)
Go for it! I agree that the whole thing can use some love. Since most of us on the platform already use RPG, I'm fairly sure this page doesn't get many views from within the community except as a gateway to articles like /free, which is why this article has lingered for so long. That's not an argument against editing it, but a possible explanation why it hasn't been done until now. Buck (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2014 (CDT)
