Talk:Computational lithography

Too much jargon

User:Politizer, thanks for your edits and inputs. As an aside, I see that just as you were deleting the "Mentor Graphics uses Cell Engine" as too promotional, I was adding the "Brion Technologies makes a custom accelerator" bit. You probably think I'm messing with you. Then when I go visit your talk page I see you've been forced to put up some sort of poppy field image because you've exceeded your wikistress limit. Sorry about that, I'm not trying to stress you out. Let me suggest a solution here. I think you'll agree that the article benefits from some sort of discussion of how the immense computational problem will be tackled. I refered to specific companies and products (btw, none of which I have any association) in the spirit of verifiability. Maybe if we pushed the companies into footnotes and something along the lines of: "Some companies have resorted to advanced multi-CPU processor architectures[1] while others are creating rack-based systems to handle the immense computational load[2]", etc. etc., you will be able to stop eating those poppies (which really are bad for your health).

The main point that you bring up -- too much jargon -- will take a bit of skill to fix. I need your help. As an expert in electronics I may not be the best judge of where to draw the line. Remembering that this is a technical topic, please give me some feedback: looking at each of the major sections of the article (intro paragraph, historical context, eye-crossing details, and end section on 100+ years of computing) -- which do you find to have too much jargon? All? Only the middle section? I'm asking from the perspective of a general article, not necessarily a DYK winner. Based on your inputs I'll see what I can do to simplify the jargon. bill devanney (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)