Re: [fonc] Programming Language Theory Stack Exchange

2014-09-28 Thread Josh McDonald 
For anybody interested in this sort of site: I while ago I found myself
asking for something "more frequently updated and less-demanding of a math
degree" than LtU, but without all the "silicon valley VC navelgazing" of
HN. A friend pointed me to https://lobste.rs/ which so far seems to have a
nice balance.

Cheers,
-Josh


--

"Enjoy every sandwich." - WZ

Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
   -  [email protected]

On 29 September 2014 00:23, David Barbour  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Miles Fidelman <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You're assuming that Q&A is a good way to discuss a topic in depth.
>
>
> I believe you're misreading Julian. AFAICT, he's said nothing about the
> utility of the discussions on each site.
>
> Q&A can be good for depth - see Socratic method. But a site like
> StackExchange doesn't support follow-up questions to take advantage of that
> point.
>
> I believe a PL StackExchange site can fill a niche that LtU does not.
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Programming Language Theory Stack Exchange

2014-09-28 Thread David Barbour 
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Miles Fidelman 
wrote:

> You're assuming that Q&A is a good way to discuss a topic in depth.


I believe you're misreading Julian. AFAICT, he's said nothing about the
utility of the discussions on each site.

Q&A can be good for depth - see Socratic method. But a site like
StackExchange doesn't support follow-up questions to take advantage of that
point.

I believe a PL StackExchange site can fill a niche that LtU does not.
___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Programming Language Theory Stack Exchange

2014-09-28 Thread Miles Fidelman 
You're assuming that Q&A is a good way to discuss a topic in depth.  
Personally, I don't.  (IMHO) Stack exchange is great for technical 
support, and quick research into questions - not so great for discussing 
topics in depth.


For the avowed purpose of "influenc(ing) and foster(ing) interest, in 
the development of new programming languages" I kind of think of "ACM 
Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems."


For "learn(ing) more about the subject or hav(ing) their doubts 
elucidated" I think of a good textbook.


For interactive discussion - I personally find blog format (essay + 
responses & discussion) to work quite well (coupled with a good search 
function).


Again - just one man's opinion.

Julian Leviston wrote:

Nope...

If you go here:
http://stackoverflow.com

...you'll notice that there's a clear heading saying "top questions", 
and it's very clear that there are questions and answers under that. 
Particularly the "Ask Question" button on its own. The structure, 
design and layout of the site informs the purpose very clearly.


Contrast this with the freeform wiki nature of LTU which doesn't 
really have a layout...


Julian.

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need *GetContented *-**Make 
Websites, Not War!


On 28 Sep 2014, at 2:12 pm, Miles Fidelman > wrote:


Silly question, perhaps, but isn't that true of a stack exchange site 
as well?



Julian Leviston wrote:
I think because of a lack of overview. When you go there initially, 
you're immediately reading the latest article, which, if you 
understand the context and what the site is, is fine... but if you 
don't, then it can be confusing.


Julian

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need *GetContented *-**The 
Best Thing Since Sliced Websites! :)


On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:58 pm, Trevor Wennblom  > wrote:



How so Julian? Hehe.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Julian Leviston 
mailto:[email protected]> 
> wrote:


   Hehe that's interesting. I'd never associated LTU with modern
   languages. I'm not sure why. Possibly because of the archaic UX
   and UI. It's incredibly difficult to parse.

   J

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need *GetContented *-**Get
   Your Website Happy. :)

   On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:37 am, Miles Fidelman
   mailto:[email protected]> 
>

   wrote:


   David Barbour wrote:

   A proposed stack exchange for programming language theory has
   reached commitment phase. It needs two hundred people. If
   you're interested in PL, please participate:



   For those not aware of it, the starting point for discussions of
   programming language theory is http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/

   Miles Fidelman

   -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and 
practice.

   In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

   ___
   fonc mailing list
[email protected]  
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc




   ___
   fonc mailing list
[email protected]  
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc


___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]  
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc




___
fonc mailing list
[email protected] 
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

___
fonc mailing list
[email protected] 
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc





___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Programming Language Theory Stack Exchange

2014-09-27 Thread Julian Leviston 
Nope...

If you go here:
http://stackoverflow.com

...you'll notice that there's a clear heading saying "top questions", and it's 
very clear that there are questions and answers under that. Particularly the 
"Ask Question" button on its own. The structure, design and layout of the site 
informs the purpose very clearly.

Contrast this with the freeform wiki nature of LTU which doesn't really have a 
layout...

Julian.

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need GetContented - Make Websites, Not 
War!

On 28 Sep 2014, at 2:12 pm, Miles Fidelman  wrote:

> Silly question, perhaps, but isn't that true of a stack exchange site as well?
> 
> 
> Julian Leviston wrote:
>> I think because of a lack of overview. When you go there initially, you're 
>> immediately reading the latest article, which, if you understand the context 
>> and what the site is, is fine... but if you don't, then it can be confusing.
>> 
>> Julian
>> 
>> http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need *GetContented *-**The Best Thing 
>> Since Sliced Websites! :)
>> 
>> On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:58 pm, Trevor Wennblom > > wrote:
>> 
>>> How so Julian? Hehe.
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Julian Leviston >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>>Hehe that's interesting. I'd never associated LTU with modern
>>>languages. I'm not sure why. Possibly because of the archaic UX
>>>and UI. It's incredibly difficult to parse.
>>> 
>>>J
>>> 
>>>http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need *GetContented *-**Get
>>>Your Website Happy. :)
>>> 
>>>On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:37 am, Miles Fidelman
>>>mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
David Barbour wrote:
>A proposed stack exchange for programming language theory has
>reached commitment phase. It needs two hundred people. If
>you're interested in PL, please participate:
> 
 
For those not aware of it, the starting point for discussions of
programming language theory is http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/
 
Miles Fidelman
 
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra
 
___
fonc mailing list
[email protected] 
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>___
>>>fonc mailing list
>>>[email protected] 
>>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> fonc mailing list
>>> [email protected] 
>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> -- 
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 

___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Programming Language Theory Stack Exchange

2014-09-27 Thread Miles Fidelman 
Silly question, perhaps, but isn't that true of a stack exchange site as 
well?



Julian Leviston wrote:
I think because of a lack of overview. When you go there initially, 
you're immediately reading the latest article, which, if you 
understand the context and what the site is, is fine... but if you 
don't, then it can be confusing.


Julian

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need *GetContented *-**The Best 
Thing Since Sliced Websites! :)


On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:58 pm, Trevor Wennblom > wrote:



How so Julian? Hehe.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Julian Leviston > wrote:


Hehe that's interesting. I'd never associated LTU with modern
languages. I'm not sure why. Possibly because of the archaic UX
and UI. It's incredibly difficult to parse.

J

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need *GetContented *-**Get
Your Website Happy. :)

On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:37 am, Miles Fidelman
mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:


David Barbour wrote:

A proposed stack exchange for programming language theory has
reached commitment phase. It needs two hundred people. If
you're interested in PL, please participate:



For those not aware of it, the starting point for discussions of
programming language theory is http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

___
fonc mailing list
[email protected] 
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc




___
fonc mailing list
[email protected] 
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc


___
fonc mailing list
[email protected] 
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc




___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Programming Language Theory Stack Exchange

2014-09-27 Thread Trevor Wennblom 
Yeah. I guess so... :)

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Julian Leviston 
wrote:

> I think because of a lack of overview. When you go there initially, you're
> immediately reading the latest article, which, if you understand the
> context and what the site is, is fine... but if you don't, then it can be
> confusing.
>
> Julian
>
> http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need *GetContented *- The Best
> Thing Since Sliced Websites! :)
>
> On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:58 pm, Trevor Wennblom  wrote:
>
> How so Julian? Hehe.
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Julian Leviston 
> wrote:
>
>> Hehe that's interesting. I'd never associated LTU with modern languages.
>> I'm not sure why. Possibly because of the archaic UX and UI. It's
>> incredibly difficult to parse.
>>
>> J
>>
>> http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need *GetContented *- Get Your
>> Website Happy. :)
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:37 am, Miles Fidelman 
>> wrote:
>>
>> David Barbour wrote:
>>
>> A proposed stack exchange for programming language theory has reached
>> commitment phase. It needs two hundred people. If you're interested in PL,
>> please participate:
>>
>>
>> For those not aware of it, the starting point for discussions of
>> programming language theory is http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/
>>
>> Miles Fidelman
>>
>> --
>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra
>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Programming Language Theory Stack Exchange

2014-09-27 Thread Julian Leviston 
I think because of a lack of overview. When you go there initially, you're 
immediately reading the latest article, which, if you understand the context 
and what the site is, is fine... but if you don't, then it can be confusing.

Julian

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need GetContented - The Best Thing Since 
Sliced Websites! :)

On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:58 pm, Trevor Wennblom  wrote:

> How so Julian? Hehe.
> 
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Julian Leviston  wrote:
> Hehe that's interesting. I'd never associated LTU with modern languages. I'm 
> not sure why. Possibly because of the archaic UX and UI. It's incredibly 
> difficult to parse.
> 
> J
> 
> http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need GetContented - Get Your Website 
> Happy. :)
> 
> On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:37 am, Miles Fidelman  
> wrote:
> 
>> David Barbour wrote:
>>> A proposed stack exchange for programming language theory has reached 
>>> commitment phase. It needs two hundred people. If you're interested in PL, 
>>> please participate:
>>> 
>> 
>> For those not aware of it, the starting point for discussions of programming 
>> language theory is http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/
>> 
>> Miles Fidelman
>> 
>> -- 
>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra
>> 
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Programming Language Theory Stack Exchange

2014-09-27 Thread Trevor Wennblom 
How so Julian? Hehe.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Julian Leviston 
wrote:

> Hehe that's interesting. I'd never associated LTU with modern languages.
> I'm not sure why. Possibly because of the archaic UX and UI. It's
> incredibly difficult to parse.
>
> J
>
> http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need *GetContented *- Get Your
> Website Happy. :)
>
> On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:37 am, Miles Fidelman 
> wrote:
>
> David Barbour wrote:
>
> A proposed stack exchange for programming language theory has reached
> commitment phase. It needs two hundred people. If you're interested in PL,
> please participate:
>
>
> For those not aware of it, the starting point for discussions of
> programming language theory is http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Programming Language Theory Stack Exchange

2014-09-27 Thread Julian Leviston 
Hehe that's interesting. I'd never associated LTU with modern languages. I'm 
not sure why. Possibly because of the archaic UX and UI. It's incredibly 
difficult to parse.

J

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need GetContented - Get Your Website 
Happy. :)

On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:37 am, Miles Fidelman  wrote:

> David Barbour wrote:
>> A proposed stack exchange for programming language theory has reached 
>> commitment phase. It needs two hundred people. If you're interested in PL, 
>> please participate:
>> 
> 
> For those not aware of it, the starting point for discussions of programming 
> language theory is http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/
> 
> Miles Fidelman
> 
> -- 
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 

___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Programming Language Theory Stack Exchange

2014-09-27 Thread Miles Fidelman 

David Barbour wrote:
A proposed stack exchange for programming language theory has reached 
commitment phase. It needs two hundred people. If you're interested in 
PL, please participate:




For those not aware of it, the starting point for discussions of 
programming language theory is http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

___
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc