Talk:WordPerfect/Archives/2019

Peacock terms and uncited statements

I noticed the the following peacock terms and weasel words in the article:

• WordPerfect Corporation released the program's most successful version ever...
• ...its unusually user-friendly macro/scripting language, PerfectScript
• ...have produced disappointing results
• This capability provided an amazingly powerful way to rearrange data...
• Unfortunately, this facility could not easily be ported...
• A new and even more powerful interpreted token-based macro recording and scripting language...
• Infamously, WordPerfect used F3...
• WordPerfect for DOS shipped with an impressive array of printer drivers...
• The Library/Office bundle also included a noteworthy task-switching program...
• Microsoft Windows had no answer to such powerful features other than a glitz of windows...
• ...an exceptionally powerful relational database - DataPerfect
• The site also maintains an extensive clip library for use in PerfectScript programming...
• The WordPerfect template and document file formats have remained remarkably stable since the WordPerfect 6.x DOS and Windows versions...
• The DOS version's impressive arsenal of finely tuned printer drivers...

I think the following statements need a citation:

• WordPerfect users forced to change word processors by employers frequently complain on WordPerfect online forums that they are lost without Reveal Codes...
• PerfectScript was specifically designed to be user-friendly...
• WordPerfect for DOS was notable for its Alt-keystroke macro facility...
• Many people still know and use the function key combinations from the DOS version...
• ...the developers' wish to keep the user interface free of "clutter" such as on-screen menus
• ...retains a small but dedicated following...
• ...Bruce Bastian's older brother - a brilliant programmer who had written some of IBM's earliest disk-caching patents
• ...These solutions are often created by corporate developers or programmers
• While Wordperfect retained a majority of the retail shelf sales of word processors...
• Amongst the remaining avid users of WordPerfect are many law firms and academics who favor the Wordperfect features such as macros and reveal codes...
• Despite pleas from longtime users...
• This was an attempt to win back users who had switched to MS Word because WordPerfect for Windows was so different from the DOS version they knew and loved...
• Although the Linux distribution was fairly well-received, the response to WordPerfect for Linux was varied...
• Developers of other Linux-compatible word processors questioned the need for another application in the category
• Advocates of open-source software scoffed at its proprietary, closed-source nature, and questioned the viability of a commercial application in a market dominated by free software...
• ...has been met with generally positive reviews
  Michael2 (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Having worked with Perfectscript for 4 1/2 years as a programmer for a state agency, I can say that for me, Perfectscript was indeed easier to use, and often more powerful than Visual Basic. Indeed, some of the limitations on Perfectscript were imposed by Windows. The team I was on was able to complete the federal automation requirements; the team trying to program using Visual Basic was not, despite their having more funding and more experienced programmers. From a design standpoint, Perfectscript owes an incalculable debt to J. Dan Broadhead, the lead programmer through version 10. Perfectscript is capable of working with WordPerfect, QuattroPro, Presentations, and Paradox, as well as alone, and can be compiled as an executable. Based on these experiences, I object to the use of 'weasel' or 'peacock' words when it comes to Perfectscript. The limitations the macro language currently has owes more to Corel's short-sighted failure to maintain a full-time development team than anything else. I have programmed in GWBasic, Pascal, C++, dBaseIII+, Visual Basic. I found Perfectscript the easiest to learn, and has made learning PHP and Javascript a snap.

WP still does both Reveal Codes and Tables better than Word, even Word2007. Based on hundred of hours of Enterprise use, WP8 ran just fine on NT4, 2000, and XP, a testament to its stability, even when the core of the WP8 program was not designed to run on the newer operating systems.

While the WP Forums are good, especially WP Universe, a reference to the Perfectscript programming language should also include a link to J. Dan's website:

http://www.jdan.com/perfectscript/

- DTavona (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that one of the problems with the concern about so-called peacock terms and weasel words is that too many overzealous editors fail to notice that the article is about the product, and the comments regarding the product are obviously to be taken within that context. It would be stupid to ignore sound facts because someone thought it was too grandiose or self-serving or not based in reality. When I read an article, I demand to know all about the subject, not just one slanted viewpoint. I believe that most of the statements are just fine. - KitchM (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing down peacock terms and weasel words does not make Wikipedia represent only one point of view; on the contrary: those things erode our neutrality, and are more often than not unverifiable. This is especially important on articles about commercial products because Wikipedia can be seen as neither endorsing not criticizing a particular product because that could potentially result in legal action and is also just generally bad form for an encyclopedia. We can cite other people praising or criticizing WordPerfect all we want, but if there's no citation, we must be completely neutral, and if there is, it must be accompanied by a qualifying phrase indicating that the praise or criticism doesn't originate from us. Gnorris97 (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of major examples where Wikipedia is anything but neutral, so let us not use that "standard" as a basis for our reasoning, but rather simply make sure that everything in the article is accurate and factual.

Let's just discuss one specific item at a time, as we have this venue to discuss them. As an expert in the area of WordPerfect I may be able to lend some historical perspective as to what is correct or not. - KitchM (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I want to mention that I fixed some of the above comments' formatting because it was nonstandard and hard to read. I didn't touch any of the text. Gnorris97 (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Bundled

Several stand-alone DOS programs came bundled with WP, two of which I found most useful, and worked perfectly on all Microsoft platforms up to and including PE. :

Notebook (NB): (file extension .nb) a limited but lightning-fast database

Program Editor (PE): a text editor with versatile and bulletproof search/search and replace function Doug butler (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)