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

OK, the reason I split your paragraph on Programming was for the reason I felt it flowed better. Introduce basically what programs are, the stages in developing, then aspects associated with this development. I felt when you introduced bugs where you did you diverted the flow into a cul-de-sac then back to the point, rather then introduced something that would turn up later on.

Psychologists use computers as examples of brains, and brain operations, hence why I used "mind"esque as it has some aspects associated with the operation of a human brain.

I never did link strongly to companies, in fact I said a definition soley for companys would be incomplete.

The point about the programming language was I was fumbling around because I was meant to be complementing an unwritten entry, so I won't do any more until you have posted your entry complete.

I'll look at the rest.

Researcher PSG

The purpose of the paragraph you have split was to take people through the whole process and *then* do it again in the list. I still think my point about introducing the word bug before the list is valid. Please reconsider. Or at least do something about that run-on sentence.

Your psychology is very out of date. That's why my colleagues would raise their eyebrows. Many of them are psychologists working in AI.

You have made comments about companies twice when I think you are trying to make a wider point about organisations that commission the writing of programs.

I agree with your last point. I'll see what I can do at lunchtime today. I have already roughed out the article.

What I meant in the Psychology bit was there is somewhere in a brain for long term storage, short term storage, and processing, as there are in a computer. And seeing as AI hasn't produced an intelligence greater than small mammals (at a stretch) they can't really say whether there own current theory is correct, let alone stand there wiggling there eyebrows at my analogy.

I have tried introducing the word bug before the list, but explained it after the list, OK? And with the run on sentance, I can't see which sentace you mean.

I'll continue pottering with this later.

Researcher PSG

Look, I must be frank. I've got, at a guess, about twenty years more programming experience than you and I work in an Artificial intelligence department. If I say there is a problem with your understanding of psychology in relation to AI then you ought to take me seriously.

We are writing for two audiences here. We need to gear our writing to novices who wish to learn how to program but we must also bear in mind that a sizeable percentage of our initial audience will be made up of the large geek population that exists here on h2g2. They *will* pick holes in our work. I am striving to make sure that there are as few holes as possible. We can achieve this by lifting our work to a slightly higher level of scholarship than we are managing at present.

Let me be equally frank, I have say 6 years of recent experience of dealing with acedemics who over complicate subjects, and decoding what they come up with.

But let us not be bickery about this, let us simply break the problem down:

1) If you don't like "mind"esque construct, rather than flining titles around how about suggest a none complex short alternative that is accesible to all.

2) I split your paragraph for reasons of simple literary flow, and the fact that it was too large a chunk to stick before an elaboration of the initial sentance.

And finally I agree we will have a ton of eager critics when we publish, so lets write simple unambiguous things rather than unwieldy all encompassing things, ok?

Simple, yes. But not simplistic. And not contentious, inaccurate, confused or plain wrong. Remember that University Projects are, in Mark's words, to be 'high quality'. On the matter of style, have you looked at the style advice to Sub-Eds recently? http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/Contribute#learn Mark's comments in this thread are also useful to read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F48888?thread=122273

What? I have written several approved entries before and there haven't been objections to my style. And as far as I can see Mark says adopt an informal style.

Have you come up with a suitable alternative to "mind"esque?

Take another look at the split paragraph, I think it is fine in its form at present.

Any other comments please be specific otherwise I am sat here scratching my head trying to work out what you mean.

Researcher PSG

I'll write something later. I'm busy now.

I would point out that your Neverwhere entry was practically rewritten by Loonytunes. That must have taken him a long time. I'm trying to save a sub-ed from having to do the same with this entry.

And let me just point out that my "Anne Frank" entry, and my "Father Ted" entry where barely touched. And also Looneytunes wrote errors into the entry, which I was hopping mad about.

That is the danger of giving the sub-ed too many reasons to get stuck into your text - they get carried away.

Your Anne Frank article is very, very good. I cannot comment on the changes made during editing since I will not be able to see the original until this version goes into the Edited Guide but I can see that we have a way to go before the set of articles we are currently writing reaches that sort of quality.

I notice that none of your Edited Articles are peppered with words like 'So', 'Now', 'Well' and 'Basically'.

And I'm not even going to start on the Tim thing.

But I'm determined to concentrate on the *content* rather than the style since that can be sorted out by the Sub-Ed if necessary.

Focussing on the content is fine with me.

The only trouble I am having is you say what you don't like, but not why. Which make it a bit hard for me.

I'm glad you like the Anne Frank article, it was tricky to write.

I was hoping you would be able to see what was wrong yourself so that you would rewrite it and continue to have the major input into the introductory page.

However, I see now that that strategy won't work.

Here's my best take on this bit:

Why are there Programming Languages? Why can't it be written in natural language?

Computers must have the tasks they perform divided up into simple actions. For example, they can move data from one part of their memory to another or they carry out mathematical operations on numbers. These actions must be described very precisely and natural language is not suited to this task. Programming languages are intended to bridge the gap between human thoughts and the internal workings of the computer by using a compact code that enables the computer to work efficiently. If traditional computer programs were written in natural language they would be very long and complex and full of details that another human would find unnecessary. Programming languages are designed to be clear in their meaning to the human mind but also, after simple translation, to have meaning to the computer.

There are four generations of programming language and many different languages within each generation. However many of these languages have concepts in common and the purpose of this project is to explain some of these concepts.

More later. I have to go down the pub now.

Right I have amended the programming languages bit, I have adapted what you wrote, but please don't go off the deep end.

Take a look and tell me what you think. After your little break of course.

Researcher PSG

I love to see civilised disagreement in action.

Feel free to join in, Lil.

OK, PSG. Here are some of my thoughts on your rewrite.

"There is a good reason for this, computers deal with data in a fundamental way, they perform a series of simple actions to perform an overall task."

In this sentence we presents two related reasons for the existence of computer programming languages. One reason is that computers can only carry out certain basic actions on data. The second reason is that complex tasks muct be broken down into a series of atomic actions. Therefore, the start of the sentence might be rewritten as "There are two good reasons for this. However, since we have probably failed to include some reasons here and the reasons we have presented are interrelated, I suggest we avoid putting any preamble at all.

My next point is that the word "fundamental" has two meanings and it is not going to be clear to the novice reader which one we mean here. "Fundamental" means "basic" but it also means "important". I am assuming that you mean "basic" so perhaps that would be a better word.

The word "perform" turns up twice in the final clause and this makes it read awkwardly.

My last point on this sentence is that the comma between "way and "they" is grammatically incorrect. Run it through the grammar checker on M$ Word to see what I mean. We have three alternatives: a semicolon, a joining word like "and", or the separation of the clauses into two sentences.

I therefore suggest this solution. "Computers can only deal with data in a basic way and the tasks computers perform must be broken down into a series of very simple actions."

To continue...

I feel that "For example: move data here, move data there, add 2 to it, that sort of thing" is too vague and I really dislike "that sort of thing." How is a novice supposed to know to what "sorts of thing" you refer? What does 'thing" mean? I recommend the close examination of words like "thing" and "it" in descriptive writing in oder to see if those words can be replaced by something more meaningful.

Two possible ways forward:

Replace "For example: move data here, move data there, add 2 to it, that sort of thing" with "For example, they can move data from one part of their memory to another or they can carry out mathematical operations on numbers" or with a less vague example presented as pseudocode.

I have changed it, how is the new version?

And there's more...

"For example the task "Take the Davies file to Personnel!" which is perfectly clear to a person, would leave the computer with the questions, Where is the file?, Where is personnel?, How do I move the File there?, Where am I?, What am I? and so on."

This time I'll start at the end. "and so on" - what does that mean? Such a phrase might be appropriate where there is a clear pattern emerging that the reader can reasonably be expected to continue in their minds but that is not the case here. I don't know what comes next and I suspect that a novice reader will have no idea. I suspect *you* would be hard pushed to come up with the next question in the series. The phrase is redundant and can be removed.

I can see a reason for an example of this kind but I am not sure this is the right one. I'm not sure that people will see this as a problem that needs programming. For a start people don't tell their computers to *take* files to personnel. They instruct their computers to _send_ the file to... No they don't. Come to think of it, no one ever has any occasion to give a computer a typed command to "send this to the computer in the personnel department." I'll try to think of a better example.

A point of grammar: you can't put commas after question marks. The questions would each have to go in speech marks first.