You're assuming that QA 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 mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net 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 tre...@umn.edu
mailto:tre...@umn.edu mailto:tre...@umn.edu wrote:
How so Julian? Hehe.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Julian Leviston
jul...@leviston.net mailto:jul...@leviston.net
mailto:jul...@leviston.net 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
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
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
fonc@vpri.org mailto:fonc@vpri.org mailto:fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org mailto:fonc@vpri.org mailto:fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org mailto:fonc@vpri.org mailto:fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org mailto:fonc@vpri.org
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
fonc@vpri.org mailto:fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
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
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc