Talk:Dr. Dobb's Journal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Existence of Show preview button[edit]

Egil, how about using the Show preview button? Many small edits tend to be annoying to browse through, plus they are an unnecessary drain on server resources. Zocky 11:58 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Problem is: By nature I am an optimist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egil (talkcontribs) 12:07, 24 January 2003‎

The word miniscule[edit]

Before entering into an unnecessary mini-edit war, I would like to know the reason for miniscule to be considered a non-existent word (which it is not, according to this ('s definition) -- see also the synonym minuscule -- or, more relevantly, reasons for the word to be seen as unfitting in the context in which is is used in this article (this fitness of course being open for discussion).

Whereas all computers so far in existence having the sorry characteristic of having but limited resources, the word miniscule in said context indicates more precisely the difference in scale between the early microcomputers (i.e., µcomputers of the 1970s) and those of more recent years (actually from the mid-1980s until today) wrt resources. That's why I think limited doesn't quite cut it in the description here. --Wernher 19:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The word "miniscule" is derived from a misspelling of "minuscule", apparently in analogy with the word "miniature". While the misspelled word has seen much usage in recent years, it hasn't yet been accepted by mainstream usage guides. For example, my Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style says "minuscule. So spelled, not miniscule." All the major dictionaries list "miniscule" as a variant of "minuscule" if they list it all. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary says
Variant of MINUSCULE a., prob. arising partly from shift of stress from the second to the first syllable, and partly from association with MINIATURE a., MINIMUM a., etc. The form miniscule has attracted much attention both in usage guides and in journalism. Cf. Webster's Dict. Eng. Usage (1989) s.v. miniscule, and also: 1977 Listener 15 Dec. 782/3 The mis-spelling of the quasi-scientific term minuscule, as miniscule is now so common it is close to becoming accepted English. 1980 W. SAFIRE in N.Y. Times Mag. 8 June 16/2 The old-fashioned spelling is ‘minuscule’, but trendy people are pronouncing it ‘mi-NIS-kyool’, so what the hell.
I don't see the purpose in using a controversial spelling when perfectly uncontroversial alternatives are available. Changing to "minuscule". Nohat 07:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No problemo, señor. :-) The main thing was to use "min(i|u)scule" instead of "limited", to more or less properly indicate the difference from today's personal computers. --Wernher 15:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


If someone has the time/inclination, a bit about 386bsd's publication here would be appropriate I think.. 08:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


While amusing in context, I don't see the point in

The area of dentistry focused on controlling overbite problems is called orthodontia.  

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link[edit]

The link in the caption is broken. Alison Chaiken 04:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Computer Products vs Seattle Microcomputing[edit]

There is a statement in the article as follows: ...Gary Kildall, who had created the first disk operating system for microcomputers, named CP/M (control program/monitor), of which Seattle Microcomputing later implemented a knock-off to avoid paying Kildall royalties, that knock-off ultimately becoming the basis for Microsoft's first entry into the operating system market. I believe that name should be Seattle Computer Products, as that's the company that sold what became MS-DOS to Microsoft. Seattle Microcomputing has only one Google hit, outside of WP and mirror, and that is a mail archive entry. I just don't have time to check this out right now, so I'm tagging it {{Disputed-inline}}. — Becksguy (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dobbs[edit]

Of course, this is a cleverly concealed reference to J. R. Dobbs.
-Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would have to be a reference to J. R. Dobb, since the name of the magazine uses an apostrophe, indicating the possessor is Dr. Dobb rather than Dr. Dobbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1typesetter (talkcontribs) 07:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stallman - editor[edit]

The article Free software says that Richard Stallman was an "editor of the computer hobbyist magazine Dr. Dobb's Journal" and it is marked as "citation needed".

I believe that an old issue of the journal with Stallman's name in the staff list would be a good enough citation, but i don't have a copy myself.

Does anyone have access to such a thing?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there is someone who has a complete collection of old articles and does searches to find things, because I used his help to find something I had written. I do not remember his name, but I think you should be able to find him. I hope that helps a little. AJim (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked rms; he said he was not an editor of DDJ. I think the Free software article was fixed a long time ago. I think this is no longer an open question. AJim (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Markoff book[edit]

I moved it to "Further reading" because according to Google Books search for Dobbs, Dr. Dobbs isn't mentioned. --Lexein (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]