Anonymous user
Category talk:OoRexx: Difference between revisions
m
→Plagiarism: added a new section. -- ~~~~
(→Plagiarism: added comments, removed incorrect comment. -- ~~~~) |
m (→Plagiarism: added a new section. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 1:
==ooRexx fully compatible with classic REXX==
Could the phrase <br><br>
''Since ooRexx is fully upward compatible with REXX, every Rexx program shown here can be also run, unchanged, using ooRexx''
<br><br>be removed or corrected? I know the next paragraph says otherwise, but why have an incorrect statement at all, even if corrected later in the same section? My area is classic REXX and I feel like a brown shoe at a tuxedo party here.
ooRexx isn't fully compatible with classic REXX, there are differences, even if only a few (I may be wrong on the number of differences). I don't want to enumerate them (at least the ones that I know of), for once done so, people will think that is the extend of the differences. I'm not an expert in the subtilties of ooRexx (differences). If the offending statement gets removed or corrected, feel free to delete this section (in the TALK section) in its entirety. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
== Plagiarism ==
In that the code presented herein is covered by the [http://www.example.com GNU Free Documentation Licence 1.2], I'm not convinced that anything developed or reimplemented from an example in another language can be or should be identified as "plagiarized", particularly if the appropriate acknowledgements are in place. (Rosetta Code even provides the means witihin the editor to indicate that a program is a direct translation of some other work via the <nowiki>{{trans|XXXX}}</nowiki> template. <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Template:Trans|see Template:Trans]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>) Plagiarism can be a very emotive word and a serious charge to level at someone, particularly when related to software development; we should avoid describing work presented here as such.
| |||