I would help. I think this is an important thing to do. I would also like to see such a reference for the libraries.
To make the language reference complete, it would be fabulous if the Wiki pages initially contained the full text from the Dictionary. We could then add exegesis as the spirit moves us. If we start with the Dictionary text, users can rely on the Wiktionary with complete confidence. Henry Rich Dan Bron wrote: > Skip Cave wrote: >> What is needed is a "training wheels" mode where each Vocabulary entry >> has lots of examples, common usages, explanations of terms, etc. Same >> for the Dictionary, which should explain each definition as if the user >> has not read anything about J before this instant (which will often be >> the case). This is for the reader who doesn't start at the beginning, > > Ah, ah. I think you have struck the heart of the matter. There is a J user > base who finds the Dictionary's terseness an impediment (I did for a very > long time), and another who find it a benefit (like I do currently). > > The insight is that the former group turn to the Dictionary, because that is > the only reference they have. If they didn't have to read the Dictionary, > they wouldn't. If they had somewhere else to turn, they would. If this > group had another option, the DoJ's terseness would be irrelevant. > > If we consider Skip's idea in the light of Raul's earlier question: > >> Is there some kind of problem with tutorials and other works >> providing this level of redundancy? > > we realize that it is not incumbent upon JSoftware to provide this option. > Their job is to publish the normative reference for the language and the > official implementation. And that's what they spend their time doing > (thanks!). > > So someone else must furnish the verbose alternative Dictionary. I note that > those who want it, are in exactly the wrong position to provide it. I > further note that the community (this community) has often furnished itself > with related material (labs, books, demos, the Wiki). So there's the > gauntlet, on the ground... > > -Dan > > PS: Maybe we could do this communally, rather than burdening an individual. > If I started a Wiki area that was formatted like the Dictionary, and maybe > created a seed Vocab entry or two, would others contribute to completing it? > > Remember that the goal is still to create a reference, not a tutorial. So, > for example, we'd have an entry on cut, but not on parsing strings (though we > could link to other parts of the Wiki for this). The entry would have to > describe what cut is, and all its subtleties, in an accessible way, but not > how to use it. Each entry must attempt to be both complete and correct > (though still deferring to the real DoJ in the case of any conflict). I'm > not sure this would be an easy thing to do, so it's worth considering before > you commit to the project. > > Also worth considering is that the value of a reference is not a linear > function of its completeness. A 25% done Dictionary is not 25% as valuable as > a completed Dictionary, because if you can't trust it, you won't turn to it > in the first place. Furthermore, community projects also have this "non > linear" aspect, and if this isn't a very visible project with lots of > activity, newcomers won't know about it, and veterans won't contribute to it, > and it will die, and we'll be back in the same boat. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
