|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class)|
Data Flow Computers are Distinct from Data Flow as a Software Concept
I do not believe "data flow computers" should be merged with "Data Flow" because the design of data flow computers involves many issues that are not relevant to data flow as it is used in software design. The article on "Data Flow" has a section on Data Flow Hardware that perhaps should be merged with the article on Data Flow Computers and then referenced from the Data Flow article.
I worked with a group of people who built a Data Flow Computer at Texas Instruments in the 1980's. Although it remained a proprietary project and never saw the light of day as a real product, it did involve a lot of interesting technical work. A0110915 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed; the hardware section in Dataflow should be moved to Dataflow architecture which should perhaps be renamed to Dataflow processing or something that clarifies that the architecture described is a hardware one, not software. JulesH 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Section moved as requested. Dyl 07:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
== Merging data-flow sub-types It seems that merging the Data-flow software/Stream Processing/Reactive programming sections would eliminate almost all the overlap between these concepts since they're basically the same. It confuses the reader to have multiple pages explain the exact same concept in multiple ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Data flow phenomena not documented
The data flow article is very good but I think it really needs to mention 'data flow phenomena' as a simple fact in tightly bound software patterns.
See the link below for an example of the term 'data flow' in describing the data flow of parameterize data in tightly bound software patterns.
Specifically the C# parameters types via the keyword
out signify the simplex/duplex nature of parameterize data in method calls.
I could write a quick section but I'd like to coordinate with the orignal article author (if they are still tracking this) and get their thoughts.
See also: Stollmann Data Flow Machine: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-74230-9_2 Part of Esprit Projekt 415 1988. Also Theo Ungerer: https://books.google.de/books?id=kzrvBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=esprit-projekt+415&source=bl&ots=zJatlod7G1&sig=lhsUKwhipnFU8V8_g_Pum2Udak4&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqyIaWyb_RAhUJECwKHS7xDdEQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=esprit-projekt%20415&f=false Wernerzucker (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)wfz
Thanks much for the great article.
PS. Data flow in this sense is datums being passed through 3 to 7 methods such as message assembly, etc.
- The 2 articles have good definitions, what doesn't make sense? Data stream is a term for data being transported from one location to another, usually multiple pieces of data. Dataflow is a method of achieving computation/transformation on data. They are 2 totally different ideas. Dyl 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Dataflow vs. data flow
- The Wikipedia lemmas are devided: dataflow programming and dataflow architecture vs. data flow diagram vs. data-flow analysis. Needless to say, the articles are all inconsistent in their spelling.
- The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists only the contracted spelling: dataflow. The Dragon Book, in contrast, uses the hyphen in compounds (e.g., data-flow analysis). So does Steven Muchnick in "Advanced Compiler Design and Implementation", dropping the hyphen outside of compounds (e.g., "data flow is not control flow").
- It seems that the programming and architecture communities use the contracted form (dataflow programming and dataflow architecture) whereas the compiler people use a hyphen in compounds and a space otherwise (data-flow analysis, data-flow diagram and data flow). Let's use this spelling consistently throughout the article. --EnOreg (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
What is dataflow ?
Language categorisation is something that is more point-of-view than it looks like. It's not possible to make a classification of programming languages that is going to be accepted by everybody, and it's even less the case when made as a simple tree hierarchy. Which source is that classification coming from ? (Is it even possible to attach a reference (source) to a box like that ?)
Dataflow diagrams can be used to express other things than what is called Dataflow in Wikipedia. Therefore, there are programming languages (PureData and MAX) that could legitimately claim the word "Dataflow" while being essentially non-functional and non-declarative, because they don't make the same assumptions about dataflow diagrams. Nameclashes like that are bound to proliferate in a world where paradigms are called by highly equivocal names ("component-based" sounds like it could be anything at all...)
Should separate pages be created for separate kinds of dataflow programming ? In that case, I don't think that there ought to be a default page (other than a disambiguation). I thought about a more general page too, but then, it would not fit as a single paradigm in the classification that Wikipedia uses. It wouldn't be a paradigm category either, because of the tree hierarchy, which forbids categories from freely intersecting each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matju2 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
dataflow vs data flow (resumption of above from 2011)
I am horrified by your spelling. Contrary to what is stated in the section above, I cannot find any entry in M-W to support dataflow written concatenated: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dataflow Granted, it may make sense to write it analogous to workflow, but for the UK the common usage is writing 2 separate words: http://www.testingstandards.co.uk/bs_7925-1_online.htm
As far as the use of hyphens is concerned, this is for the writer to decide for the sake of clarification when data flow is followed by one or more nouns. Thus there is no inconsistency between data flow and data-flow management, though you could equally argue that the hyphen is superfluous as data flow-management can be discarded.188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)