Talk:Prototype

Under Design and modeling, The "counter-intuitive idea" sentence should either be updated or removed because it's ambiguous.

Yes, if it's ambiguous, it needs to be deleted or fixed. But what is ambiguous about it? It seems intuitive to me that "do X by itself" will be faster than "first do W, then do X". How could I make it less ambiguous? What else do you think it might possibly mean? --68.0.120.35 22:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it is not so much ambiguous as pretentious management twaddle. Greglocock 06:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

While this is a long way from being a decent article, I don't think a merge would be helpful, but perhaps it is more that I think the types of prototypes need separate articles - this seems to rant on about show cars, which are very far from prototype cars, these days. Greglocock 06:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the merge into either article. The language used to define '“prototype'” and “artifact” in the Metrology section is good stuff. Further, the term “prototype" is odd enough that people would look it up by directly typing the term into the search field. They shouldn’t have to hunt around for relevant text imbedded elsewhere. Greg L (my talk) 17:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposeing it because from what I could see, it didn't rant on about show cars, despite someone's opinion. Drakonis 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are at least two merge proposals. So your smartass comment may be out of place. or not.Greg Locock (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit

The paragraph: "It is widely believed that the kilogram prototype standard will be replaced by a definition of the kilogram that will define another physical constant (likely either Planck's constant or the elementary charge) to a defined constant, thus obviating the need for the prototype and removing the possibility of the prototype (and thus the standard and definition of the kilogram) changing very slightly over the years because of loss or gain of atoms."

should be updated as the Australian science group CSIRO is currently making a new prototype which will replace the International Prototype, made as a perfect sphere of Silicon. The new measurement will be made using the number of Silicon atoms in a kilogram.

Here is a link to a news article on the sphere to be created. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/making-an-exact-difference/2007/06/14/1181414466901.html and here is a link to the CSIRO's own news article on the subject. http://www.csiro.au/news/PerfectKilogramMediaRelease.html

In Computer Science?

I think we have to be more discriminating in terminology. "Computer science is the study of the theoretical foundations of information and computation..." and not related to specific schemes of programming languages. A better wording might be "computer programming" or "programming languages" instead of "computer science"

There are several shades of distinction in computing-related field. Again to quote wikipage on computer science, "The practical aspects of computer programming are often referred to as software engineering." There is difference between coding and computer science theory as well as trade-school level curriculum and university level CS curriculum.

Factual Dispute of Computer Science Section

The paragraph discussing alpha and beta software is inconsistent with Software release life cycle. Specifically, the former states that alpha software is "the first version to run" and that beta is "for testing of the entire software."