User talk:Dgamey: Difference between revisions
m
→Clipper / Harbour / XBase =: Removed orphan "=" in section title
(→Jcon - Language or implementation: new section) |
m (→Clipper / Harbour / XBase =: Removed orphan "=" in section title) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 15:
I've noticed that you didn't like my edit to the Jcon category page. But as I understand it, Jcon is an implementation and not a proper language. If you go to [[Jcon]] you will notice that all the content is still there (just not categorized as a language). And you yourself have included it on [[:Category:Icon_Implementations]]. Additionally the [http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/jcon/ Jcon site], the [http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/implver.htm Icon site] and also [[wp:Icon_(programming_language)|Wikipedia]] describe Jcon as an implementation instead of a language. So I don't really understand why you insist on listing Jcon as a language on Rosetta Code. --[[User:AndiPersti|Andreas Perstinger]] ([[User talk:AndiPersti|talk]]) 16:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
: I'd be happier if it was an alias rather than blanked out which is what it looked like this morning. It didn't look like the information was all there. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] ([[User talk:Dgamey|talk]]) 22:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::You mean the Jcon page should redirect to the Icon page: [[Jcon]]? And the same for [[:Category:Jcon]]?
::Isn't the relationship Jcon/Icon comparable to [[JRuby]]/[[Ruby]], [[Jython]]/[[Python]] or [[JTcl]]/[[Tcl]]? In all these cases there is a language page (which redirects to the category page) and if you click on "xxx Implementations" (in the section "Subcategories") you get an overview of all language implementations on RC where each implementation has its own page (but no category page).
::Copying that structure was my intention.--[[User:AndiPersti|Andreas Perstinger]] ([[User talk:AndiPersti|talk]]) 17:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
: Hmmm ... this seems to different than I recall. Consistency is better. Go for it. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] ([[User talk:Dgamey|talk]]) 18:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
::Sorry for the delay, but I somehow missed your agreement for the changes. --[[User:AndiPersti|Andreas Perstinger]] ([[User talk:AndiPersti|talk]]) 19:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
== Clipper / Harbour / XBase ==
::Do you have any objection to Clipper and Harbour being stored under an XBase heading in task solutions? It would seem to me better than duplicating code under separate Clipper and Harbour headings.[[User:Axtens|Axtens]] ([[User talk:Axtens|talk]]) 12:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
== MS SQL v. Transact-SQL ==
You're one of only two self-proclaimed Users of MS SQL on Rosetta Code. I don't use MS SQL, but I'm trying to understand Rosetta Code's structure.
<br />
<br />
[[MSSQL]] redirects to [[:Category:Transact-SQL]]. Both have "/Omit", "examples needing attention", "Implementations", and "User" pages in the Category: namespace. I'm trying to determine if all the MSSQL pages should be redirected to the equivalent Transact-SQL pages.
<br />
<br />
Can you help me understand the programmatic relationship of MS SQL and Transact-SQL? For example, does it make more sense to say the Rosetta Code Tasks are encoded in Transact-SQL?
<br />--[[User:GarveyPatrickD|GarveyPatrickD]] ([[User talk:GarveyPatrickD|talk]]) 17:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
| |||