Talk:Parser combinator

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Quote: "To keep the discussion relatively straight forward, we discuss parser combinators in terms of recognizer only" - this and other language looks like it is lifted straight out of an academic paper. Although this is a pretty rarefied subject perhaps some small edits would make this article sound slightly more like an encyclopedia, and less like a paper. I can't do it myself because I am far too ignorant on the subject to avoid changing the articles meaning in tandem with changing its style. 62.140.194.147 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article now actually explains what a parser combinator is and does, something I felt it was lacking previously. 87.115.114.221 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this article fairly biased. Although I do not wish to diminish their achievements, the focus on Frost et al.'s research seems exaggerated and not suitable for an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominique.devriese (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make some changes in this article to make it more clear. A work I won't do, because guys who do not know about the subject, don't look it fine by ignorance of the subject, and based in very absurd dogmas, of what should a wikipedia article look like. A criteria which in infecting this site with the trend to give a very superficial treatment to every subject. An encyclopedia is not an illustrated dictionary, it should enclose all human knowledge. Before some wiki-policeperso, come to erase my colaboration, I will refrain to improve any article in a subject I know (like this one) until that emerging policy is eradicated from wikipedia. Sorry guys but I perceive as threat comments like: I see above as seeing this article as biased, just because the bibliography or that looks like a paper and not an encyclopedia entry. I will not spend my time to wait that the skilled wiki-police, that place alarms on pages they are watching, come to erase all new information in the subject as soon as I have entered it.

I had that experience several times. Now I just protest for that attitude which I suspect is paid by commercial encyclopedia competitors. And I have decided to warn my students to not trust in wikipedia, due to such pseudo-official vandalism, by self-named authorities. Stop that actions and I will come back again to improve, not to oversimplify the subjects I know about.