Difference between revisions of "Talk:Open Source Projects"
m (boilerplate) |
m (Vladimir Panteleev moved page Talk:List of Open Source Projects to Talk:Open Source Projects over redirect: Redundant, as discussed) |
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |
(No difference)
| |
Latest revision as of 00:49, 24 March 2016
This is a talk page. It is to be used for discussion of potentially controversial or otherwise large changes to the article itself.
- Please use the Add Topic link to start a discussion on a separate topic. Don't start a new topic inside an unrelated section, as it will only cause confusion.
- As a rule, it is considered bad form to edit somebody else's comments. Instead, post your reply to their comments immediately after.
- Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so that we know who said what.
Vision for this page?
To me, having a page titled »Open Source Projects« seems somewhat strange, given that there is also a »Libraries and Frameworks« list. Maybe, we should split this page – put libs on the library page, and create a new page for tools? In any case, I think it doesn't make much sense to duplicate open source libraries here. --Klickverbot (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2012 (CET)
- IMO it's important to think from perspective of user. If someone wants to look how D source code looks, want to learn something from others code - that's the tab open source projects. It includes *tools* and libraries. Maybe you want to look what people do in d and how they made it? It doesn't have to be a library to be worth for looking on it. Libraries and frameworks are separate thing, when you're looking for code that will do work for you - ideally, you shouldn't care about its internals. It might be opensource or not. It might be in D or in C. In my opinion `bindings` is a worse category than opensource projects. If we would have to remove one of them i would opt-in for removing `libraries and frameworks` because it's narrower. I know that programmers are used to removing redundancy, but it's a different layer - user interface layer. Generally i agree with you, we should do something with this. Now, when we got semantic mediawiki it will be easier to make better categorisation and customization for each use-case (opensource or not, library or not, etc.). --Shd (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2012 (CET)
