Cites

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:CodeCat
Jump to: navigation, search

You're not being descriptive. JavaScript does not describe Java. The passive approach taken is propagating a blatant falsehood that is well known by the experts in the field. So you've taken the amateur word of some editor and held it up on a pedestal against...


...you know what. That's fine. Folks will read the Wikipedia article long before coming here. This is a joke. I'm reaping what I sow on the Wikipedia side. Good one guys. Who needs common established expert undisputed facts when we can have a dictionary that covers misconceptions instead?

TParis (talk)14:25, 15 January 2013

You are making an effort to avoid understanding us. I can't believe that Wikimedia editors would come here just to troll volunteers on a sister project.

We're describing the language how it's really used. Just because somebody is uneducated about programming doesn't mean they can't speak English. As long as we mark it as proscribed etc, it is acceptable as a definition.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds14:55, 15 January 2013
 

TParis, it is not a misconception that some misinformed people have mistaken Java for Javascript before. It is fact, as shown by the quotations. Regardless of what words people should use, we document mistakes used in languages all the time. See for example Category:Misspellings by language.

Yair rand (talk)20:33, 15 January 2013