Talk:Hollywood principle

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 15:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "Hollywood principle" seems to be derived from a paper by Richard Sweet on The Mesa Programming Environment, the bibliographic entry of which is given below

@inproceedings{806843,

author = {Richard E. Sweet},
title = {The Mesa programming environment},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 85 symposium on Language issues in programming environments},
year = {1985},
isbn = {0-89791-165-2},
pages = {216--229},
location = {Seattle, Washington, United States},
doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800225.806843},
publisher = {ACM Press},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
}

In addition to being part of the ACM digital library, the paper is publicly available here

Smostinc 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The paper actually calls it Hollywood's Law. Rp (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Neologism

Some simple googling would suggest this is probably not WP:NEO, however, it does need more citation.

• Hollywood Principle: Don’t Call Us; We’ll Call You—ActionScript 3.0 Template Design Pattern goes Hollywood! [1]: "The problem in understanding the Hollywood Principle is that it is too often glossed over as a type of inversion of control."
• It's mentioned in Head First Design PatternsHead First Design Patterns. It's available online through Google Books[2].
• It's also called The Greyhound Principle [3]

- Legaia (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to disagree. For anything I have seen thus far, the "Hollywood Principle" is used as an illustrative synonym for Inversion of Control. An article cited above actually states that it is often glossed over as IoC, but fails to produce a meaningful differentiation itself. This article states indirectly that IoC is more specific class of the "Hollywood Principle" as "Inversion of control containers take the next logical step". However, the article cited above states, again, "the Hollywood Principle ... is too often glossed over as a type of inversion of control." This at least indicates that the author is confused, and I would contest that the term is poorly defined enough that it would be difficult to state with any certainty who is correct.

However, I'm may be shown or judged to be mistaken on this, and I'm willing to accept that. Doesn't change that this article is unacceptable. There is virtually no citation, and from what I have seen, some of it may not be cite-able at all (product of author's experience). The article also often lapses into persuasive or instructive tones, rather than simply providing information. This would all make quite a fine blog post, but doesn't belong here to my mind. --Femtorgon (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that there is a real separate concept here. What is the difference, for example, with event-driven programming? Don't confuse concepts with catchphrases. Wikipedia doesn't need to have separate articles for each nice catchphrase. Rp (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)