Skip to content

reboot the Scala FAQ #1844

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 10, 2020
Merged

reboot the Scala FAQ #1844

merged 3 commits into from
Dec 10, 2020

Conversation

SethTisue
Copy link
Member

@SethTisue SethTisue commented Dec 10, 2020

gah, nobody has touched this thing in years. and, perhaps, because it's so neglected, nobody in our chat rooms and forums ever refers anyone here. (I exaggerate a bit, but it's mostly true IMO)

but people probably still find it through Google. and if we make it good, then perhaps people in chat rooms and forums will refer people here more

so let's do something about it. changes so far:

  • don't duplicate content from Stack Overflow; this was a worthy but IMO failed experiment
  • discourage long writeups; encourage links to answers elsewhere
  • add a few general questions at the top that I know to be especially frequently asked
  • drop the question about breakOut, it is not an FAQ these days

this PR is just a start, much room for improvement remains, but IMO this is already mergeable

The "More questions" thing is admittedly awkward -- it's the only answer in the old FAQ that wasn't just a duplicate of something from SO. Doing something about that could be future work.

gah, nobody has touched this thing in years. and, perhaps, because
it's so neglected, nobody in our chat rooms and forums ever refers
anyone here.

let's do something about it.  changes so far:

* don't duplicate content from Stack Overflow; this is a worthy
  but IMO failed experiment
* discourage long writeups; encourage links to answers elsewhere
* add a few general questions at the top that I know to be
  especially frequently asked
* drop the question about `breakOut`, it is not an FAQ these days

this PR is just a start, much room for improvement remains,
but IMO this is already mergeable
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author

Screen Shot 2020-12-10 at 8 44 09 AM

Screen Shot 2020-12-10 at 8 44 12 AM

Screen Shot 2020-12-10 at 8 44 15 AM

@Philippus
Copy link
Member

This would close #1495 I think. :)

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author

If anyone has a suggestion for an especially obvious and important addition to the "General questions" section, you can suggest it here, and if I like your idea, I will probably add it and write an answer right now.

If your suggestion is for the "Specific technical questions" section, I would prefer that you wait and send your own PR after this one is merged.

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author

SethTisue commented Dec 10, 2020

this PR is just a start, much room for improvement remains, but IMO this is already mergeable

To expand on that, my plan here is:

  1. merge this PR
  2. just publicize it to contributors
  3. hope some volunteers materialize to get it in even better shape
  4. then publicize it more broadly

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author

(before we merge this, I need to add a commit that adds redirects for the removed pages)

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author

related: MasseGuillaume/sca.la#59 , since the FAQ's URL is hard to remember

@eed3si9n eed3si9n merged commit 63d0874 into scala:master Dec 10, 2020
@SethTisue SethTisue deleted the overhaul-faq branch December 10, 2020 21:44
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author

before we merge this, I need to add a commit that adds redirects for the removed pages

haha well, I'd better go write that commit right now then :-)

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author

#1845

@SethTisue SethTisue mentioned this pull request Dec 10, 2020
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author

more followup: #1846

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants