On 10/08/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/9/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> computer terminology guide - hence why the
[[FOLDOC]] maintainer saw
> it and promptly wondered whether he should continue with FOLDOC at
> all.
Did he decide to continue? I have to agree, it does
seem kind of
pointless: Wikipedia is GFDL as well, contains many of the sources
FOLDOC draws upon, has inherently better technical facilities (not
just in linking to fuller encyclopedic entries on terms but in
general), better articles etc.
Someone wrote to him asking for permission to use his stuff in
Wikipedia, and he happily released it all under GFDL just for us :-D
FOLDOC has some careless copyright violations in it - definitions
cut'n'pasted from guidebooks and so forth - that I've found when
adapting FOLDOC material for Wikipedia. (I can't remember what
entries.) It allowed public contributions, so some people were
careless. Something to watch for.
It would be an interesting thing to do to recompile FOLDOC from Wikipedia ;-)
But I've always wondered something about FOLDOC;
does its name come
from the foldr and foldl operators in functional languages?
Free On-Line Dictionary Of Computing.
Shock! Quelle horreur! We don't have [[foldl]] or
[[foldr]]!
You know what to do!
- d.