Anonymous user
Rosetta Code talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions
→Book: Picolisp by example derived from the site: Signs of wanting to add to the discussion?
(→Book: Picolisp by example derived from the site: I told them to sit back. I did get a heads-up. I look like an authority figure. I hoped RC would still get behind this. I think it's good for RC.) |
(→Book: Picolisp by example derived from the site: Signs of wanting to add to the discussion?) |
||
Line 68:
::: I presumed the RC community would still be willing to to lend a hand and get this thing rolling. The infrastructure and effort required to set up a book like this (and the experience gained therefrom) can be turned around and applied to ''every'' language on Rosetta Code, which I saw as a great opportunity to raise awareness of more programming languages, provide more consolidated documentation for some, show off the great work that the RC community as put into creating this corpus, and to highlight editorial need. (Seriously, read through the book; presented in this way, you can see the variance in quality and organization of RC tasks, and it strikes me as a great view to help come up with a better task layout and template.)
::: I really think the RC community should step up and lend a hand, even if only by looking at [[Task Description Authors]] and applying it to each task on RC. The PicoLisp by Example book looks (to me) like a great opportunity to drive improvement on RC, and to bring what we've done to more people (while setting up a framework for doing similar things going forward). --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 13:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Hi Michael, so the two mentioned as authors know about this discussion and just choose to ignore it? It would be good if they joined the discussion and gave their own view. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 03:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Doesn't the license state that some attempt at stating authorship needs to be given? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 10:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
| |||