Talk:Flow-based programming

compare it with Occam/Transputer/CSP ?

In the "Comparison with other paradigms and methodologies" of the page I think this would really be a welcome addition. Subjects seem VERY similar to me conceptually, though rather separated in people and content. A good comparison could help a bit in a 'joining of forces' kind of way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steltenpower (talk • contribs) 07:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

can someone put a link to the FBP-9 submachine gun article on this? I was looking for that and ended up here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.144.113 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

FBP apparently needs a disambiguation page. Jpaulm (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just created it - someone needs to create/link to an article on the FBP-9, and I have also reinstated the link to Fructose 1,6-bisphosphate, which apparently uses the same acronym. Jpaulm (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

speedy delete

Please give us time to fill out the article. This article was created less than ten minutes ago. Ideogram 21:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

GA comment

I have been reading about languages, learning some over time but have never been the best at it so I might not be the best to review it anyway. I would think this article meet all the criteria but is really technical and really tough to understand by newbies so I will refrain from giving a real assessment but just to let you know, I might not be the only one turned off by the technicallity behind such a topic. Good luck with the GA process. Lincher 22:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to review this article for GA, but I might need to do some copyedit, and then next is the decision. So please wait... ;-) — Indon (reply) — 08:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I refrain to do the copyedit, as I found that the major contributor is the author of the book. Thus I will jump directly to the GA review as given in the next section. — Indon (reply) — 10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

This is the most difficult article for me to review, though I've a background in software engineering. The main reason is that the major contributor of this article is the inventor and also the author of the only Flow Based Programming book [1], who also has his own wikipedia page about him. For me, it is difficult to distance myself this article as an encyclopedic article from an advertising one. According to No Original Research policy:

Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, then the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.

— WP:NOR, section Citing oneself

So, in this case, I've decided to limit myself and to scrutinize only the criterion (4) of WP:WIAGA, i.e. about WP:NPOV. As of 25 September 2006, this is my assessment limited to criterion (4):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias: → failed

All comparisons of FBP with other programming paradigms are taken from chapters from the book. For example, with JSP is Chapter 24, Applicative programming is Chapter 25, with Linda is Chapter 27, with OOP is Chapter 26, and so on. Thus simply all of this comparisons are cited from the book, which means that no other third parties views are given in this matter. Prose of the Comparison section is similar with Preface of a book.

I have to say that when I was reading the whole page, it was just like reading data chunks (borrowed from your term) from the book. To me, clearly, that this is a typical of a vanity article, where all materials are presented to promote the book (see WP:FAIR). If the major contributor of this article is not the author of the book, perhaps I am not going to say that this is a vanity article, but rather an article with lack of materials from other references.

Therefore this article is bias, only presenting views from the author of the book (and by the author himself).

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. → failed

Now, let me see what significant views that are presented here:

• Comparisons with other methodologies are not enough. Other third parties (not the author) views are needed to make a fair comparison.
• Criticism to FBP is missing. Well, if you are the author/inventor of the method, then you tend to hide this issue.
• Method's limitation is not given. There's no such a perfect method.

There is also definitely a conflict of interest, i.e. interest of the author to promote the book.

For a feedback, if editors wish to improve this article to be a GA, then I suggest to ask other peer contributors to edit the article, reduce materials from single source, introduce materials from other references, and fairly put these materials in the article. There is also my concern about the prose, as technical jargons are not briefly introduced and the prose is likely not for a common reader.

Based on the above assessment, I failed GA status for this article. If you disagree with my assessment, then you can always put this article in WP:GA/R. I don't mind at all. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Infopipe

The company involved has added an entry titled title = Infopipe is registered as a Trademark or Service Mark with the US Patent and Trademark Office to the References. Apparently they speak the truth: the trademark was registered to them in 2001, but the format is all wrong!!! Suggestions? TIA Jpaulm 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this different from dataflow programming?

How is flow-based programming different from dataflow programming? It seems that they are different terms for the same thing. If they are different, there should be paragraphs in each article doing a compare/contrast. Otherwise, I would recommend merging into the older dataflow programming and making flow-based programming a redirect. --IanOsgood 22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Flow-based programming definitely belongs to the category dataflow programming, as do LabVIEW and a number of others listed in the article on dataflow programming. Almost all of these have their own pages in Wikipedia, so it seems reasonable to treat Flow-based programming, which has its own history and focus, similarly. Jpaulm 20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of "Telegram Problem"

Maybe I'm a bit dense today, but I'd like further clarification for the "main line" description. With the latest adittion, I understand "neither the input nor the output end can be used as the top of the call hierarchy (main line)" as "neither input or output data can be used to control the program main flow", but I'm not sure whether that interpretation is right (and "call hierarchy" or "main flow" should at least be wikilinked for readers that don't know those terms). Diego (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your correction to the article - that seems like a very good solution. Are you OK with it as it is now? Jpaulm (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer someone to explain WHY "the programmer has to realize that neither the input nor the output end can be used as the top of the call hierarchy". I think this would clarify the control issues that this example is trying to illustrate, but doesn't. Diego (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks, Diego! Jpaulm (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I think the problem is better explained now in more standartd, understandable terms. Diego (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to start the discussions about merging the articles flow-based programming and dataflow programming. Please keep in mind that I put up this proposal as both articles currently seem to discuss identical topics (i.e., they give similar definitions).
In case you see good reasons for both articles being kept separately, then please state these reasons here, update both lemmata's definitions, and explicitly differentiate between both concepts in each article.
Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is much in common between the two articles, but a) FBP has its own history, b) a combined article would IMO be quite long, c) I don't see FBP's emphasis on asynchronism mentioned in the Data flow article, d) FBP is not a language, it is a language-agnostic methodology and approach to application development. The same question was raised back in 2007 by Ian Osgood, and I feel my answer then is still valid:

FBP definitely belongs to the category dataflow programming, as do LabVIEW and a number of others listed in the article on dataflow programming. Almost all of these have their own pages in Wikipedia, so it seems reasonable to treat Flow-based programming, which has its own history and focus, similarly.

Jpaulm (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this statement is illogical to me (syntax error).

1. flow-based programming is defined as a paradigm.
2. dataflow programming also is defined as a paradigm.
3. LabVIEW is an instance/example of any such paradigm.
4. It is absolutely okay to have articles about examples of programming paradigms. But the mere existence of such an example article doesn't justify to have a copy of its paradigm's article.

--Abdull (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Not sure what you mean by 'syntax error'
2. Are you saying that the paradigm is Dataflow, and FBP is an example of that?
3. FBP has important characteristics that are not present in most dataflow approaches - so maybe it's an extension of a paradigm...
4. FBP used to be called Dataflow programming (it was the only one around in those days), but that started to cause confusion....

So perhaps you could say what changes you are proposing before we do anything drastic! Jpaulm (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If this discussion is not going to be followed up, how do we remove the Merge proposal tag? Alternatively, someone is going to have to create a new merged article. Is anyone working on that? TIA Jpaulm (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If both dataflow programming and flow-based programming are eligible to be separate articles, then each article should explain what the differences between both terms are.

Example:

• In the FBP article, there should be statements such as: "FBP should not be confused with dataflow programming. In dataflow programming, this and that is different." .........
• And in the dataflow programming article, there should be statements such as: "Dataflow programming should not be confused with FBP. In FBP, this and that is different."

Cheers, --Abdull (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Saw your comments. I took a look at Dataflow Programming, and it's very broad, covering a wide range of related systems. FBP, on the other hand, is a unique technology, and is now starting to spin off all sorts of offshoots, most of which share FBP's characteristics (bounded buffers, information packets with defined lifetimes, named ports, and separate definition of connections), although a few call themselves FBP, but appear to have different ancestry. If you want to say that FBP is a type of data flow approach, I'm OK with that. However, the only justification for merging them is if you believe that FBP is the only viable dataflow approach - which would be very flattering, but probably not proven. :-) Thanks. Jpaulm (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My merge proposal is a suggestion. If you see good reasons not to merge both articles, then they definitely should not be merged. I'm a layman when it comes to dataflow programming and FBP. Having a look at both articles, they currently seem to define both terms identically. Being a layman, I cannot comment on what has to be written in the articles to make them separate. I only can say that they must be written in another way in order to show the differences if there are any. That's where your domain knowledge can fill the missing gap. Cheers, --Abdull (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

objection I am against a very long article, having two somehow different topics merged by force. Sae1962 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flow-Based Programming primary-inline tags

Wondering why two of the references in the History section to publications by Wayne Stevens have "primary-inline" tags attached. In the absence of an explicit reason, mousing over these tags produces "This claim needs references to reliable secondary sources". It appears that, at one time, @JzG was under the impression that Wayne Stevens was one of the inventors of FBP, whereas in fact he became aware of the project about 10 years after its inception (see the 1971 Technical Disclosure Bulletin vs. the dates on Wayne's cited publications). The issue cannot be Wayne's reliability as, in the '80s, he was already a highly regarded IBM software architect, with a number of books to his credit. Could someone look at these "primary-inline" tags, and remove them if they are judged unnecessary. TIA Jpaulm (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flow-based programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206005615/http://www.ferg.org/papers/jackson--a_system_development_method.pdf to http://www.ferg.org/papers/jackson--a_system_development_method.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Main website for FBP moved to GitHub

The main website for FBP has been moved to GitHub. Please could someone change the URL http://jpaulmorrison.com/fbp/introduction.html to https://jpaulm.github.io/fbp/introduction.html , as I am not allowed to make changes to this article... BTW If this rule is no longer in force, please let me know...

TIA Jpaulm (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)