Talk:DWIM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the edits removing content about DWIM being a hypothetical language were justified. The idea is patently silly, and I can't find any references to support the idea that anybody uses DWIM that way. Bigpeteb 17:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, useless material which just seems like a bad joke, deleted. --80.217.189.62 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's stated that its use is humorous, but I cannot find where's the humour in it... --euyyn (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked awhile, but couldn't find a reference. This term was well-known by computer scientists 30 years ago. (Even those who knew nothing about LISP. That's the reason, by-the-way, I have a certain question whether Teitelman originated it.) It's humorous because programmers and users know that a computer program cannot be swayed by their emotional appeal, so saying "DWIM" is intentionally and pointlessly "talking to a brick wall".

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article changes

This article has various small problems:

1) The citation slightly contradicts what the article says (Teitlman did not necessarily coin the phrase, and did not claim that he did.)

2) The POV is a programmer's, but the term is common among general computer users. (And according to some sources, to the public at large, in non-computer-related situations.)

3) Some statements are unprovable, hyperbole, or just wrong. "With this the user can nearly always get the desired result..."

4) Replacing the words "acronym" with "initialism" and "typo" with "thinko" is confusing, and makes distinctions that are not explained. The Wiki article on the "thinko" link directs to a Wiki article that does not mention the word.

5) The article has much unfounded speculation. Saying that DWIM originated in the "early computer age" is either too vague (when was the "early computer age"?) or untrue (the Wiki article states modern computers came about in the 1940s). It would be more straightforward to note that the term has been around for decades.

6) EMACS is a poor example, because most readers will never have heard of it, and probably less than 1% used it enough to make a good example. (I've used it, and was unaware of -- or didn't remember -- the comment-dwim function.) Examples that many readers will be familiar with appear on the Typographical error and Office Assistant.

7) The link to Occam's Razor is confusing. That is a rule of thumb about scientific explanation, whereas DWIM has to do with human factors.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)