Talk:Phrogram

comment

According to the official website, it's Kid's Programming Language not Kids Programming Language. But I'd like to know who this kid is. I'd assumed it was the inventor of the language, but according to this, he has kids of his own, so it seems unlikely. -- Smjg 11:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously a grammatical error on KPL's part. The correct name would have been Kids' Programming Language, unless, as you say, there's someone named Kid to whom KPL is dedicated (seems very unlikely). I don't know if we should change the article name or not :-) Haakon 11:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We should be honest and consistent about what the language is called. I've just fixed it accordingly. The way it was, there was no way (other than visiting the KPL website) to find out which title is correct.

But it does puzzle me that the creator had better ideas than to teach kids proper English.... -- Smjg 15:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

License?

According to the website, you must purchase this program to use it beyond 30 days. This is basically an advertisement for a commercial software product.

Advertisment-y

Is it just me or does this article sound very pro-KPL? For example statements such as: "have taken KPL from those early stages to a globally successful product in less than a year" seem to be making unverifiable claims that advertisers would use. - DNewhall 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That point crossed my mind too - looks like the initial article was lifted from an advertising brochure somewhere... sheridan 03:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I saw something like a criticism section pointing out that it is not platform independent some time ago, but that seems to be gone now? I also did not find it in the history... 88.76.141.240 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reads like an AD

Parts of this, especially the Philosophy section read a little bit like an advertisement for this language, not a non-biased description. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.137.157.249 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Inconsistence

These two quotes seem to contradict each others:

...but does not support the definition of objects.

Phrogram supports object-oriented programming (OOP) and allows for definition of classes and their associated properties and methods, which provides beginning programmers with an introduction to OOP programming.

130.225.127.106 (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is now clarified by noting that support of objects is limited (does not include polymorphism or inheritance) Dwitus (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft only, or Mono too?

It would be useful to make it clear whether Phrogram is only suitable for a Microsoft environment, or whether it can run on any .NET compatible platform such as Mono under Linux. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's Microsoft only

Phrogram won't run on Mono Dwitus (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential edit war - Kid's or Kids?

Dwitus (talk · contribs) changed

Kid's [sic] Programming Language

to

Kids Programming Language

giving the edit summary

Removed [sic] as change was made in KPL name from "Kid's" to "Kids" which is not grammatically incorrect; added note that KPL distribution was discontinued in May 2008

Firstly, if it really was renamed from "Kid's Programming Language" to "Kids Programming Language" at some point in its history, please provide a source to support this claim. (It's true that [1] gives the "Kids" form, but how is one supposed to know that this was an actual rename during KPL's time, and not somebody in the Phrogram Company making a mistake?)

Besides, such renaming doesn't alter the fact that it was previously called "Kid's Programming Language". And what, pray, has led you to the false conclusion that "Kids Programming Language" is "not grammatically incorrect"? -- Smjg (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential edit war? That seems a bit little over the top. As for removing it, the {dubious} template has been there for nearly a month with no movement. We're talking about an apostrophe in the name of a discontinued product, and the company website clearly lists the name as "Kids programming language" - but since someone appears to have requested a reference for it, I've added that. There are more Google hits on that name. If they used it in a different way previously and there is some reason that you think it is really that important, we can mention that in the article as well, but the reality of the matter is that readers will be more confused by the {dubious} marking than by any "clarity" revealed by having a debate if the apostrophe should be there or not. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But FWIW, I've just checked the Internet Archive, and all versions of http://www.kidsprogramminglanguage.com I've looked at, from the oldest to the newest, give it as "Kid's", further supporting my theory that the form given at the twice-aforementioned page is a mistake. -- Smjg (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I don't have a strong preference if the apostrophe is there in the article or not. My main concern was surrounding the {dubious} template. Your references are fine if you want to cite one of them and use Kid's. Have fun, —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)