Programmer's Wiki


Bureaucrat Admin
1,922 Edits since joining this wiki
October 1, 2008

HTML examplesEdit

hi, if you look at HTML the tasks are most suited for javascript. We can either have them on your wiki or here whichever you prefer. I'd like us to work on them at about the same time to get them done properly. --Drawde83 20:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

just so I know Edit

whats the story behind us merging with the programming wiki? Since it's inactive it's probably not a big issue. I just wanna know whats going on. I don't want to seem to be taking over other wikis by force.--Drawde83 05:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned, it's inactive so there's no one to ask. (Well, except for one IP user but there's a complex story behind that. I'll ask him when the related mess is resolved, hopefully in a couple of days.) Either way, Wikia staff will make sure it's all legit before doing anything with the Programming Wiki, and it can keep all its articles in the mean time. --Jesdisciple (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

can you check the poll Edit

I can'st vote on the forum page but I can on the transcluded one.--Drawde83 03:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't on either one. I was afraid this would happen as it did on the help page, but I thought it was worth a shot... Do you mind asking about it on Central's forums? --Jesdisciple (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

poll Edit

hey, I think the polls had enough time now. theres probably still a few more articles that we could move over from programming before we redirect to here. What do you think?--Drawde83 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you ask for help with the poll? Not that it matters much, as I'm apparently the only one having any problems and you know what I think. :)
But sure... What articles are you referring to, BTW? (Non-article pages may also be worthy of transfer.) I'll join you as I get the chance. --Jesdisciple (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
sorry about taking so long to reply, busy week. Scala Python didn't get copied across properly. I'll see if I can find any more. As for the poll I think considering the number of people voting and the problems it's had I think we can just go with whatever you and I agree on since the two addresses go to the same place anyway. I didn't get any help for the wiki as it started working for me. Just so I know what did you pick. --Drawde83 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I also forgot to reply. Like you, I prefer the "code" subdomain.
BTW, I wonder if we should change our logo? The old Programming Wiki's is really nice, but the text is inappropriate over here. --Jesdisciple (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RE Edit

I read the forum post. :) --{{SUBST:User:Gp75motorsports/sig}} 19:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

need help? Edit

how are things going? reading your forum post it seems like your a bit unhappy about the way the collaboration is going. So if there's anything you need help with on the javascript wiki let me know. I'll have a look tommorrow and see what I can help with. --Drawde83 10:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not that I'm dissatisfied with our cooperation, but I want to beef it up. I think new elements would benefit the system, as detailed in that post. The whole idea behind all this is that if one tech wiki (or any Wikia wiki, really), especially one in such a tight cooperation, gets new members, then other wikis are more likely to grow as well. This may be because the first wiki reaches critical mass sooner, or because some of those new members couldn't get enthusiastic about that first subject like they could about another. In the second case, the other wiki will reach critical mass sooner and the first will benefit from that. Without the cooperation, the new members are more likely to simply forget about Wikia.
Particularly, this wiki is closest to critical mass among the wikis related to JavaScript, so its membership would be a big incentive to the others. --Jesdisciple (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Category sort keys Edit

Categories are automatically sorted by their name even without a sort key. ✩ko (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm back Edit

I read your last comment on the forum. Don't take me leaving for a few days as a sign that I've abandoned the wiki. I think when conversations get heated it's not a bad idea to leave it alone for a bit. --Drawde83 08:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I seem to have people not respond to me right and left, and most of the time someone who doesn't respond initially never responds. So late responses are a pet peeve of mine; even if you have to simply say you'll be responding after a while, that's better than not responding at all for a while.
Anyway, see this conversation. And what do you think of Wikia:Interwiki Integration? --Jesdisciple (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of their comp sci articles seem to be copied from wikipedia. I would rather work on articles they have produced themselves (I have an aversion to copying from wikipedia). It's probably best to focus on getting soft redirects and helping out on their articles.--Drawde83 09:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
See Forum:Relevant content & interwiki links; your input is invited as always. --Jesdisciple (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New templates Edit

hey can you give me your opinion on Forum:Article management templates, regards --Drawde83 01:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cooperation between wikis Edit

Go ahead and merge. CSW is practically dead anyway. Also Gp is currently banned from CSW, but the ironic thing is that he's one of the founders. BoL (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

CSW = Code Snippets Wiki. BoL (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(copied:) Hi! Time to move? Edit

(text copied from my talk on programming for easier overview. rursus 08:24, October 14, 2009 (UTC))

Hi! Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten all about this (and haven't been active on Wikia lately). I can't remember who objected, I think it was the only current editor, an anon... Anyway, I think all the pages have already been ported and the only remaining thing to do is redirect. Tell me if you'd like help with anything. --Jesdisciple (talk) 18:17, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Be welcome! I was formerly littering with "This page has been moved to the Programmer's Wiki." in order to collect all coding guys to one place and a coordinated effort. Regarding activity: it must by necessity be intermittent as our lives allow it, and as the lust comes and goes, otherwise this our coding handbook becomes forced and less quality.
Without any emotional overtones, I just noted that our profiles as programmers, bicyclists, and Christ-followers coincide. This might just be a mystical emergent alignment quality of the collective unknown. rursus 08:24, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
Just curious... Why did you split the convo across the wikis? It's not a big deal for us, but talk pages serve as a human-readable record for the random person. I know I've been that random person before...
Re coincidence: Heh, and you even posted that on your user page. =p Speaking of which, I see you like use Java; have you noticed the Java Wiki before? If you have the time, maybe you could adopt it? I think I could drum up some interest in Java to help out; I've been goofing off with games for a long time, so my interest in programming might be ripe by now. --Jesdisciple (talk) 21:28, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks! Edit

No problem. This happens easily with all those "user-friendly" buttons and gadgets they invented. I see, that you are a programmer... Maybe you'd like to use wikEd. With syntax-highlighting it's much easier to see missing pre tags. ;-) --Weas-El talk | blog ) 11:30, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Would you please mark problem report #34203 as fixed? Thank you. --Weas-El talk | blog ) 11:58, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sysop Edit

I hope you don't mind I added you to the groups Sysop and Bureaucrat for this wiki. --Bitfreedom 17:46, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the past and future of Programmer's Wiki Edit

Thanks for dropping a line. I have some opinions on the wiki, but as I typically don't have the time to put into it, I feel as though my opinion should be taken somewhat lightly. I think the consensus of the people most interested in contributing should be considered first. With that said...

The wiki was originally at my domain (still mine) at (And hence this stupid user name.) The main purpose of the original wiki was a breadth-first view at programming languages, their constructs, techniques, and most of all code examples. It was supposed to be an online resource to quickly answer a question "how do I do X in language Y?" For example, as an experienced programmer, I might find some Ruby code I need to hack, and need a quick look-up. That was supposed to be the main attraction and added value to our Internet: a centralized location to essentially look-up syntax. This would have a reliable interface, and would be a quicker resource than simply searching for that particular problem on Google. Furthermore, it could contain advanced techniques and contributed code to explain concepts. (Teaching by example.)'s manual is a great example of the kind of resource I thought the wiki should be, only with focus on more breadth across languages than depth within a language.

I absolutely totally agree with non-wikipedia-style articles! That has been one of my main concerns with this wiki (or any other one for that matter) since the beginning. Because WIkipedia is so popular and the people likely to contribute to a wiki probably have strong influence from Wikipedia, it is exceedingly hard to break the mold and get people to think about articles differently. There are some things which should be the same, but all those things have to do with creating a common and easy to follow interface, not with content. Most of that is taken care of by the mediawiki engine and the theme we choose. So I like to say "focus on the code" instead of encyclopedic descriptions. Even if people are lazy and we just have a wiki full of only code examples, it's still more useful than an "Encylopedia of Programming" whatever that would be.

This may mean creating a well-defined page structure. If we took's manual as an example, what could we do to use that in such a way that would make sense for multiple languages. Maybe each article should start with a definition of what a particular function does, and typical input and output parameters (not in code yet). And then immediately dive into the code listing. Then maybe a side-by-side code comparison section (if applicable). Then maybe a caveat's section. Then last, user-contributed examples. The examples could be written in any language, but should be written in such a way that given the preceding sections it would be trivial to translate to another language. Any OTHER functions used within examples should be linked to the appropriate page for that function. Essentially it turns into a big `man page` system for programming languages.

In regards to your list:

  • Detail: I like the idea of code examples as detail that surpasses what Wikipedia does
  • Linking: appropriate inter-wiki linking is always useful to the reader, however we should be careful not to make it confusing
  • Community: One thing that wikipedia doesn't have is a standard template for user pages... which is ok. I don't know if it would be a good idea or not. It definitely would make the site seem more coherent.

Also I think we should welcome and encourage questions about how to do something in a particular language on a certain topic in the article's discussion page.

Ultimately I would say just start implementing changes that you think are best... I mean it's better to make a change that isn't perfect rather than let things stagnate. After all, anything on a wiki can be rolled back if you don't like it.

--Bitfreedom 20:47, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your response today. I'm still interested in the idea of a code reference in general, but I think maybe I just don't like wikia all that much ;) I'm glad for wikia to bring more people to the table for something like this, but wow the software here is just getting way too complicated. Bitfreedom 22:24, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and a clarification... Edit

Hello, and thanks for the message informing me on the changes. I like the idea of focusing more on code snippets and tutorials, and less on encyclopediac content. My only concern, is that I'm not exactly certain where to draw the line between a useful glossary, and something like a Wikipedia article. Could you clarify this more for me?

Also, like you noticed, I'm back. I'll do my best to contribute as I can. Recently, I've really gotten into the language Lua, and I'd love to see more content related to it on here. I'd also just like to state that my participation will be on and off, but I'll do what I can. :)

Anyways, get back to me when you can.

OK. Just to be certain, this is allowed as long as it doesn't get much longer and overly in-depth, right?: template metaprogramming & tail call.
As for the Lua situation, I'm in no way trying to rewrite lua-users on this site. My idea was just to highlight all of the main points on here, and of course, link to them quite a bit. Does that sound good? :)

Cheers, Athlon32 23:23, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki