Talk:Use-define chain

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer science Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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}}

This article seems really heavy on the algorithm and really light on explanatory text. My inclination is to remove most of the algorithm stuff and replace it with a short explanation of the fact that use-define chains are used by compilers in optimizing code, and also as tools for human debuggers. Opinions?

Leonard Lcuff 17:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would make a not so useful article even more useless. I'm wading through most artices in Category:Computer science and this one is on my to be rewritten list, so I suggest keeping it as it is. --R.Koot 18:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with R.Koot. The algorithms are fine; they just need some explanation. In general, I've learned that deleting is the last resort. It's sort of like, "If you don't have something better to say, leave it alone" unless it's clearly wrong or utter nonsense. --KSnortum 03:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see both points. One issue is that academic papers use many different mathematical structures. Lambda calculus, set theory, number theory, etc. The prose often have text like, ⁠${\displaystyle s(i)}$⁠ where it is clear what this means if you are familiar with the subject matter. However, it is not that helpful to a random technical reader. For instance, where i is an integer in ⁠${\displaystyle [1,n]}$⁠ would be easier to understand if it was where i is an integer in the range ⁠${\displaystyle [1,n]}$⁠. The papers do this for brevity, but it really makes the Wikipedia text less accessible. I think expressing the algorithm is useful. However, academic papers want a mathematical formalism to prove properties; and all readers are often intimately familiar with these mathematics. The math is not so important for comprehension. I think that a pictorial with arrows and crossed/Xed arrows for killing would be instructive to many more people than re-using the mathematical notation. 157.52.22.218 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with CompSci but this is a little outside my experience, so I tried to only deal with formatting and clarity. Hopefully I didn't change the meaning.

"Consider now the sequential execution of the list of statements s(i) and consider that we observe the computation at statement j" This is such a clunky sentence. Hopefully what I changed it to is clearer without being inaccurate: "Consider the sequential execution of the list of statements s(i) and what we now observe as the computation at statement j"

The headings "Setup" and "Execution" are mine and very artificial. I just thought the article needed at least two headings. "Setup" should probably be changed; it's the best I could think of.

The statement "A(i) is a simple but powerful concept..." is parenthetical, so I put it in parentheses. Still, I don't like the format. Maybe a footnote.

--KSnortum 16:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would agree on the merge. It seems on is heavy on technical explanations and the other is more on how and why def-chains are used. I would like to see the second one cleaned up more, though. The language is very informal. --KSnortum 02:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added an example but had problems with the editor. I could not add the references. Could somebody please do it? This is the link http://www.wi.uni-muenster.de/pi/lehre/ws0910/se/uebungen/Uebung6-Vorstellung.pdf and you have to look at page 25.

Hope it is better than nothing and could be useful for someone.

Kian Salem (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the first paragraph:

(...) A definition can have many forms, but is generally taken to mean the assignment of some value to a variable (which is different from the use of the term that refers to the language construct involving a data type and allocating storage).

Isn't the use of the term that refers to the language construct involving a data type and allocating storage simply a declaration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagguh (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]