Talk:Flow-based programming

message: In the "Comparison with other paradigms and methodologies" of the page I think this would really be a welcome addition. Subjects seem VERY similar to me conceptually, though rather separated in people and content. A good comparison could help a bit in a 'joining of forces' kind of way ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steltenpower (talk • contribs) 07:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  compare it with Occam/Transputer/CSP ? 

message: can someone put a link to the FBP-9 submachine gun article on this? I was looking for that and ended up here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.144.113 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Please give us time to fill out the article.  This article was created less than ten minutes ago.  Ideogram 21:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speedy delete 

message: I have been reading about languages, learning some over time but have never been the best at it so I might not be the best to review it anyway. I would think this article meet all the criteria but is really technical and really tough to understand by newbies so I will refrain from giving a real assessment but just to let you know, I might not be the only one turned off by the technicallity behind such a topic. Good luck with the GA process. Lincher 22:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I refrain to do the copyedit, as I found that the major contributor is the author of the book. Thus I will jump directly to the GA review as given in the next section. — Indon (reply) — 10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA comment 

message: This is the most difficult article for me to review, though I've a background in software engineering. The main reason is that the major contributor of this article is the inventor and also the author of the only Flow Based Programming book , who also has his own wikipedia page about him. For me, it is difficult to distance myself this article as an encyclopedic article from an advertising one. According to No Original Research policy:
So, in this case, I've decided to limit myself and to scrutinize only the criterion (4) of WP:WIAGA, i.e. about WP:NPOV. As of 25 September 2006, this is my assessment limited to criterion (4):
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
:(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias: → failed
::All comparisons of FBP with other programming paradigms are taken from chapters from the book. For example, with JSP is Chapter 24, Applicative programming is Chapter 25, with Linda is Chapter 27, with OOP is Chapter 26, and so on. Thus simply all of this comparisons are cited from the book, which means that no other third parties views are given in this matter. Prose of the Comparison section is similar with Preface of a book.
::I have to say that when I was reading the whole page, it was just like reading data chunks (borrowed from your term) from the book. To me, clearly, that this is a typical of a vanity article, where all materials are presented to promote the book (see WP:FAIR). If the major contributor of this article is not the author of the book, perhaps I am not going to say that this is a vanity article, but rather an article with lack of materials from other references.
::Therefore this article is bias, only presenting views from the author of the book (and by the author himself).
:(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. → failed
::Now, let me see what significant views that are presented here:
:::* Comparisons with other methodologies are not enough. Other third parties (not the author) views are needed to make a fair comparison.
:::* Criticism to FBP is missing. Well, if you are the author/inventor of the method, then you tend to hide this issue.
:::* Method's limitation is not given. There's no such a perfect method.
::There is also definitely a conflict of interest, i.e. interest of the author to promote the book.
For a feedback, if editors wish to improve this article to be a GA, then I suggest to ask other peer contributors to edit the article, reduce materials from single source, introduce materials from other references, and fairly put these materials in the article. There is also my concern about the prose, as technical jargons are not briefly introduced and the prose is likely not for a common reader.
Based on the above assessment, I failed GA status for this article. If you disagree with my assessment, then you can always put this article in WP:GA/R. I don't mind at all. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA failed 

message: The company involved has added an entry titled title = Infopipe is registered as a Trademark or Service Mark with the US Patent and Trademark Office to the References.  Apparently they speak the truth: the trademark was registered to them in 2001, but the format is all wrong!!!  Suggestions? TIA Jpaulm 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infopipe 

message: How is flow-based programming different from dataflow programming? It seems that they are different terms for the same thing. If they are different, there should be paragraphs in each article doing a compare/contrast. Otherwise, I would recommend merging into the older dataflow programming and making flow-based programming a redirect. --IanOsgood 22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this different from [[dataflow programming]]? 

message: Maybe I'm a bit dense today, but I'd like further clarification for the "main line" description. With the latest adittion, I understand "neither the input nor the output end can be used as the top of the call hierarchy (main line)" as "neither input or output data can be used to control the program main flow", but I'm not sure whether that interpretation is right (and "call hierarchy" or "main flow" should at least be wikilinked for readers that don't know those terms). Diego (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw your correction to the article - that seems like a very good solution.  Are you OK with it as it is now?  Jpaulm (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd prefer someone to explain WHY "the programmer has to realize that neither the input nor the output end can be used as the top of the call hierarchy". I think this would clarify the control issues that this example is trying to illustrate, but doesn't. Diego (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's great!  Thanks, Diego! Jpaulm (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the clarification. I think the problem is better explained now in more standartd, understandable terms. Diego (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of "Telegram Problem" 

message: Wondering why two of the references in the History section to publications by Wayne Stevens have "primary-inline" tags attached.  In the absence of an explicit reason, mousing over these tags produces "This claim needs references to reliable secondary sources". It appears that, at one time, @JzG was under the impression that Wayne Stevens was one of the inventors of FBP, whereas in fact he became aware of the project about 10 years after its inception (see the 1971 Technical Disclosure Bulletin vs. the dates on Wayne's cited publications).  The issue cannot be Wayne's reliability as, in the '80s, he was already a highly regarded IBM software architect, with a number of books to his credit.  Could someone look at these "primary-inline" tags, and remove them if they are judged unnecessary. TIA Jpaulm (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow-Based Programming primary-inline tags 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flow-based programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206005615/http://www.ferg.org/papers/jackson--a_system_development_method.pdf to http://www.ferg.org/papers/jackson--a_system_development_method.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The main website for FBP has been moved to GitHub.  Please could someone change the URL http://jpaulmorrison.com/fbp/introduction.html to https://jpaulm.github.io/fbp/introduction.html , as I am not allowed to make changes to this article...  BTW If this rule is no longer in force, please let me know...
TIA  Jpaulm (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main website for FBP moved to GitHub