Talk:Expression problem

Original Research?

A bunch of very non-encyclopedic content was added to this page describing new, published work related to the Expression Problem. I somewhat hastily called it Original Research in my edit summary reverting it, but there was an article cited (badly) and it may be that some of the content was appropriate for this page. Someone who knows more might want to attempt to incorporate some of it back into the page in a manner that follows style & content guidelines. Personman (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes ! Original Research!

Due to the move of the Haskell.org on a new server there were broken links.

As a Ph.D I had the intention of continuing this page. Do not reject experts!

Ha$kell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.170.229 (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem description is unclear

I think the problem description is not clear: What is "representation", BTW? Maybe give an example (preferably language-independent) showing the problem. --Uhw (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Biased formulation about Reynold

That sounds like its written by someone who is endorsing object orientation, without any given source. It reads very much like a personal opinion:

"However, Reynold's conclusions based on this early analysis turned out to be completely wrong: he wrote that adding a second method to an object "is more a tour de force than a specimen of clear programming," which completely missed the Object-Oriented paradigm and its great success. He also believed the two forms of data abstraction "are inherently distinct and complementary." 77.119.171.90 (talk) 77.119.171.90 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The paragraph has two problems. It supposedly quotes someone but fails to provide a citation, it then, as you write, goes on to draw a conclusion that is not supported by a citation and appears to be the editor's own opinion. I have removed the offending text. MarcGarver (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)