Talk:Shell curses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The notability of shell curses is based on the notability of curses_(programming library). Shell curses is a derivative of curses, only written in shell code. Curses is a "C" language function library providing terminal manipulation functions. All curses programmers would have an interest in derivative works such as "shell curses". (unsigned comment by 65.203.91.35)

If that's all there is to it, then this article should be deleted, since it's relationship to other topics is purely parasitic, it is not based on a reliable source, and was started by a COI editor. Tedickey (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The relationship is not parasitic, but derivative. It is separate and apart from "curses", but performs similar functions to a different sector of programming languages and programmers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.203.91.35 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If it were only derivative, then this topic's notability would not be "based on" the notability of curses. Furthermore, if it were notable, there would be reliable sources (discounting Dana French) commenting on it knowlegably. There are no such sources; for the past fifteen years, I've not seen one comment on the topic in newsgroups that was not initiated by Dana French. Futhermore, there are no reliable sources describing (or commenting on) the "many" applications using it. In short, it's parasitic, since it has no life of its own. Tedickey (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The applications that use shell curses are typically written by system administrators for their own use and are usually not sold or published. Shell curses is referenced by many of the Unix industries top shell programmers and sites, including Chris Johnson, Brian Hiles, and Heiner's Shelldorado. A quick google groups search will reveal numerous newsgroup references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.203.91.35 (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure: provide the reliable sources as requested, establishing notability, rather than continue to make vague claims. Tedickey (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a followup providing factual information. This gives me only 79 hits. Tedickey (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Using Chris Johnson as a reference isn't a good way to proceed, since he's almost always going to argue in favor of hardcoded approaches. However, as show here, he's still not going to agree with the inaccurate statement made in the topic about tput. Tedickey (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The tone of your postings seem to indicate you are angry about this article, is there something about shell curses that has angered you? Again it is not parasitic since it is an independent and separate work from curses, if curses didn't exist, shell curses would be uneffected and continue being downloaded. I stopped counting downloads at 2 million circa 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.203.91.35 (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana French is the author of the topic (barring random edits from a couple of IP-editors who have not improved the content). There's no worthwhile content presented so far. Looking forward to some meaningful discussion of the topic, which so far is absent. Tedickey (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the conflict of interest, "particularly neutral point of view", please identify which part or parts of the article do not conform to Wikipedia policies for a neutral point of view, and I will correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.225.24 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no source of information in the topic other than Dana French's webpage. There are no technical reviews, etc. That "in circa 1993" is vague - there must be a reliable source, e.g., posting to comp.sources.misc or business journal, even PC Magazine, but something other than the one source. The section on portability needs reliable sources (otherwise it's only advertising material - note that it makes several claims). The overview makes a specific claim about performance as well. From a technical standpoint, the topic is deficient since it doesn't note that the scripts rely on system-specific behavior of tput (which is not POSIX). The list of functions provided is extraneous text. If one were to remove the various claims and extraneous material, the topic would be substantially shorter. Tedickey (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)