h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have started this new thread so that we can keep points about the content of this project separate from the other stuff.

OK, I'll start my comments on the content with a tricky matter.

The bit about the Bulgarian is a problem. It could be perceived as racist. I am not saying that PSG intended to be racist, nor that it is in the same category as standing in the centre of Oldham and burning the Pakistani flag, but it makes unwarranted assumptions about Bulgarians and also implies that Bulgarians are in some way separate from, and excluded from, the h2g2 audience.

I have just read the paragraph in question to my flatmate (who for the record is Brazilian) and before I had even got to the end of the second sentence she declared it to be racist. I agree that two people do not constitute a statistically valid sample and our views may be skewed by having a particularly logical Bulgarian as a very close friend but, nevertheless, I have to insist that you remove the reference or at least change Bulgarian to Martian.

Even then I will be at a loss to explain how tepid water would result in a dead Martian.

Amy the Ant

I was NOT being racist!!!!

I mearly picked, AT RANDOM a non- English speaking country, so I could point out it is like trying to explain it to someone who doesn't speak the same language, the logical bit was purely bringing it into line with a computer.

Oh and the implication was that if you badly explain something like that they may do themselves a mischeif with an electric appliance if the floor was covered in water.

I will change it if only for the sake of narrow minded pigeon holeing mis-interpretation.

Researcher PSG

I clearly stated that I didn't think you were being deliberately racist. You are not being pigeon-holed. I am not narrow minded.

I am saying that the paragraph could be _perceived_ as being racist. Perception is always more important than intention. I am insisting that the paragraph be changed on those grounds.

I said I would change it and have.

Sorry if I went off it, but it is something I feel strongly about.

Thank you.

My next point about content is that the introductory page could be altered to make it a much more obvious jumping off point to the rest of the project. Would you mind if I had a go at restructuring it? I would do this in a new Guide Entry from my page so that we can all discuss my ideas before you cut and paste anything we agree is of value from my page into yours.

No prob, Just leave a link here and I am quite happy to colaborate.

Researcher PSG

Ok. I'm going to do that now.

I also think that my article on Children's Programming Languages should be outside this project in the same way as the individual languages like C and Java are. It really doesn't fit in with the nature of the pages in this project.

However, I will try to restructure the intro so that links to related projects and pages can be made easily in the future as the Guide grows.

I have noticed that some of the pages on individual languages are a bit "thin" compared to the current style of Guide pages. Perhaps our next task should be to add to those entries.

I have started the rewrite of the introduction. It is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A581825

I still have a problem with the dead alien.

Following the metaphor in this example we appear to be implying that if you do something wrong in the programming process the computer will die.

As programmers you may have difficulty empathising with this view but I work with end user programmers and many of them are terrified that if they do something wrong, even a really little thing, they will do permanent damage to the computer. This is, of course, not the case but perhaps we should put in something reassuring for the more insecure novices that might read the page.

Yes, it might be a good idea to add to those language entries, also possibly so that the language specific entries on how to write in them can be accessed via the introduction entry on that aspect of programming, or the language page. However I am not clear on how we would get to change existing guide pages.

I agree with the childrens programming languages, I had a quick peak at it from you project page, and I thought it would probably be included as a language entry or the like. But I don't see why we can't put it through with the project. I was thinking of getting my entry on assembly loops through, as a sort of get the ball rolling on language specific entries. After all this the idea of the project is to give an introduction to programming, and give the guides entries on programming useful structure.

Right I wait on the link for the colaborative introduction.

Researcher PSG

Changing existing Guide Entires is one of those things that is theoretically possible but in practice isn't happening at the moment.

I believe Mark is waiting for some new editing tools from Jim to make this easier. Such a facility will certainly be necessary as the years roll by or the Guide will get stuck in a timewarp. After all, we should be able to update the entry on the Earth from "harmless" to "mostly harmless", surely!

I agree with all your other points.

I am surprised there is no update tools, you would think that was essential in a data source to keep it current.

Researcher PSG

I have had a go at reorganising the introductory page and i'm quite pleased with the way it is going but I wanted to stop and get some feedback from you guys before I did anymore.

I have color-coded my changes and suggestions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A581825

The introductory page now follows a simple software engineering structure with four parts:

1. Define the task
2. Write the program.
3. Translate
4. Debug

In the second part we point out that there are concepts common to many languages and that this is the main focus of this project.

I propose that we move Ab Guy's bit on compilers to the second section leaving Syntax on a page by itself.

We would need to write something on debugging but not much because we can link to pre-existing Edited Guide pages like A563807.

What do you think so far?

Amy

Right, interesting start, here is a couple of comments straight off the bat.

1)Change from "plan or proceedure" to "set of instructions to tell a computer how to perform a task." I just feel if we give 2 interpretations it might confuse the nervous, also I think if we set it out this way it is clearer. Personal opinion.

2) in the bit where you talk about bugs, how about "these can be failures in interpretation of instructions, or simply badly written instructions. These errors can lead to ..."

3) Avoid the word "Computational" as if it is nitoglycerine as it will in all likelyhood have people running in terror to hide in their attic.

Now these are just initial comments, but you asked for feedback, sorry.

Researcher PSG

Oh also I have a problem with stage 1, you use that vexed word computational again.

how about "define the overall task the computer is being asked to perform, in terms of a set of instructions the computer can perform."
or sometyhing new like that, as I think at present it will hit peoples brains and slide right off without getting the point across.

Researcher PSG

I have implemented all your points. I have just deleted the word computational from the list and changed the HEADER of the first section to "Tasks for Computers"

I wonder if you could turn your attention to the first part of the Tasks for Computers section. I am not sure what you mean by

"2. To apply computers to unreal or theoretical problems, or appllications. This can effectively be looked at as everything else, or as whatever you can think of to apply a computer to."

and the two points you make here do not seem to match in style.

I really am not sure what you're driving at here.

Well what I meant was there are programs designed to render a picture of an alien world, make a fictional alien walk, or create a music track, to analyse universal white noise for possible patterns, or be an research assistant. I was trying to cover the rather trick area of using computers for unreal uses, or abstract uses, or anything that isn't the application of computing to an aspect of reality. This was after everyone said, but what about this or that, when I simply had point 1. I couldn't really think of a simple but yet comprehensive way of saying everything else, the "think of a weird concept, yeah thats right it can be used for that" aspect of computing.

oh, and another suggestion the a subheader for the second paragraph "But what is programming really?". Just a thought.

Researcher PSG

I'll have to have a think about that. It doesn't work for me. I can't see what is unreal about white noise.

And what is this about research assistants? All the research assistants I know are very real. I work with several. Research Assistant is a grade of job in UK universities.

I can't see the need for any subheader in that section. Can you explain how the examples in the list below the subheader fit your two types of programming task idea?